Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahinda Pathegama

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahinda Pathegama[edit]

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

Scientist who appears not to pass WP:PROF. Additionally, there are no reliable third-party sources and Google news archive provides only two trivial mentions of him. This article was prodded in May but the prod was disputed. The article appears to be under dispute; along with the sub-stub nominated version [1] there is also a much longer version preferred by one editor [2] but it is no better at providing a convincing claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Google Scholar gives very few hits, and it doesn't look like there is evidence of meeting any of the other criteria of WP:PROF. There are some hits on Google Web search, but apart from the self-published stuff, it's mostly peripheral, like this one. Favonian (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Web of Science list 1 (one) article, never cited. Google Scholar lists 6 publications, cited a grand total of 2 (two) times. Obviously does not meet WP:PROF. Perhaps that some of the newspaper sources may pass WP:BIO, but as they all seem to be about his scientific accomplishments (which basically seem to have gone unnoticed up till now), I strongly doubt that. --Crusio (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no sources, no notability. End of. Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The edit warring in this article has started around July 14. I found out that the emergence of the reports claiming he has committed intellectual property thefts coincide with this. Here is a Sinhala language report dated July 16. The heading reads New inventions commissioner maraud intellectual properties. Seems like this incident has ensued the edit warring. I think this edit sums it up. I will investigate further on this. But I am optimistic that we can salvage the article.--Chanaka L (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little citability of his academic work, does not pass WP:PROF. GoogleNews also turns up very little, so it looks unlikely that the subject passes WP:BIO. The edit war mentioned above indicates potential BLP issues; in cases of marginal notability this gives an extra impetus towards deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP issues. I've had had enough of these POV pushing. From the beginning I assumed GF and believe we can bring it within NPOV by writing it with RS. I tried to the resolve the dispute, but the edit-warring kept going. Then I tried to keep it as it is, by reverting vandals, requesting page protection and reporting one POV pusher. Then one peanut-brained resort to ROFLable PA against me. But I still persist with AGF and I improved the article from Ironholds' version to a level at least it might have a chance. But again another POV pusher have come along and copy/pasted a section from Muttiah Muralitharan#University of South Australia study. I believe this will exhaust any good Wikipedian's patience when one worked amidst of personnel attacks. I doubt even the article survived the AfD, we won't be able to keep them at bay. At minimum pending changes have to be implemented.--Chanaka L (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The "copy/paste" from Muttiah Muralitharan#University of South Australia study is in fact the same information from the same source, written in a more detailed form. I don't believe it can be classified as "POV Pushing". The page's current state contains all-referenced material and confines to WP:NPOV. It should simply be protected from vandalism and the addition of unverified/false/irrelevant information. Referring to a previous comment, this "edit warring" appears to have started with the release of one newspaper article with allegations against him, but there happens to be a newer one which shows a number of allegations in the previous were incorrect (Here). From this evidence, this "edit warring" seems to have started on the basis of poorly presented views and accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.95.181 (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2010 (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.