Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mithra Siriwardena

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. This has been open a month; has been relisted three times; and has had no substantial input for at least three and arguably over two weeks. Therefore there seems no realistic likelhood of a consensus emerging to delete this article. What discussion that did take place, however, was evenly-weighted between policy arguments to delete, and sourced-based arguments to keep. No prejudice of course aganst WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 14:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mithra Siriwardena

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

This article was subject to previous speedy delete and this re-creation of the article still fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, which does warrant auto-notability. Dan arndt (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) is Senior gazetted officer of Sri Lanka Police, should not be deleted instead allow the article to be further improved.DilJco (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DilJco: just because they are/were a senior police officer does not make them automatically notable. Clearly fails to satisfy the requirements under WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Consider Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the third highest rank in the Metropolitan Police Service of London, UK, i.e. covering a population a bit less than half that of Sri Lanka. Most of the people in that role are notable, so, by extension, it seems likely to me that holders of the third highest rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service would probably be notable. The current article clearly fails WP:GNG as is, but there is material out there, like [1], [2], [3], and passing mentions in [4] and [5]. So, on balance, I'd go with keep. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are five Assistant Commissioners but there were 46 Deputy Inspector Generals (at 31/12/15).--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on Obi2canibe's comment this means that in the history of the Sri Lankan Police force there could be over 1,000 DIGs - I don't see how the whole is automatically notable as a result. The article needs to meet WP:BASIC at the very least, which this doesn't. Dan arndt (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying one last time to generate some more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to closer) there is no justification that a DIG is inherently notable. Both DilJco ~~and Obi2canibe~~ have not been active since making their respective comments. Dan arndt (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2017 (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.