Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siri Gamage

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siri Gamage[edit]

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

fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. no indepth coverage [1]. gscholar doesn't reveal anything more than run of the mill academic. considering that article was started by user of same name, WP:AUTOBIO applies here too. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd really like to see a list of journal publications... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Then take a look at Google Scholar where you will find an h index of 3, quite inadequate for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF as Xxan says, and press mentions seem to be insignificant for WP:BIO in general. Ray^Talk 14:44, 29 September 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.