Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranga Ediriwickrama

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ranga Ediriwickrama[edit]

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

Fails the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Australian Rules Football. The article uses its crystal ball to say he'll be important, but actually he was injured and never played in the AFL.[1] He got a smattering of coverage in the local paper over a couple of years, but this player was never notable. Fences&Windows 09:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 09:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 09:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looking at the Google results alone I would have thought he's notable, but your rationale makes sense. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i would still consider him notable. he is the first AFL player of Sri Lankan decent —Preceding unsigned comment added by OorjaNights (talk • contribs) 09:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. MC Rocks (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable under the WP:GNG due to his unusual heritage and junior performances and also the NSW scholarship scheme. Is still on the Cats' player list, so could make his debut in the near future. Your nomination is also misleading, as I wouldn't call having a story about him, not just mentioning him, in the largest circulation daily paper in the country only "a smattering of coverage in the local paper".The-Pope (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets the general notability guideline through having substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Two of the major Australia newspapers devoted articles entirely to him. Also, Geelong is a major city of 200,000 inhabitants so to dismiss its major newspaper as merely local coverage is not really appropriate. Nor is the charge of WP:CRYSTAL sustainable. CRYSTAL is only for unverifiable speculation, but every statement in the article is sourced properly. Reyk _YO! 13:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. I am the creator of this article. Reyk _YO! 13:31, 21 July 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.