Talk:Suresh Sriskandarajah

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Suresh Sriskandarajah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/Exclusive+Waterloo+Suresh+fights+bright+future+free+from+charges/3084566/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant information
This page was littered with information irrelevant to why this article exists, which is the fact that he committed and pleaded guilty to terrorism offences.

It is not relevant what courses he took at law school, or that he ran cross country as a boy. This is not a CV nor a personal awards page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junius52 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible slow-motion white-washing over the last few years
put a note at (diff) calling attention to possible white-washing of Suresh Sriskandarajah.

The whole reason that this person is notable is for his legal issues with the United States government.

In the last few years there has become more and more about his non-notable law career and less and less about what makes this person notable in the first place.

I restored it back to the version of 12:27, 8 December 2020, but it looks like the change has happened slowly over a period of years, with a handful of editors making the vast majority of the edits over that time period.

There needs to be a discussion about whether 1) the person meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, 2) if so, why, and 3) the due weight to give to the things that make him "notable" and the due weight to give to other things. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are way too many SPA's that have been editing the article to make me feel comfortable. In my opinion, there's a small possibility of some accounts being connected., what would you say? Pahunkat (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Extract sources and start over is a possibility. I'm not too picky as to the "how," I'm more interested in getting the questions I asked answered - is the person notable, if so, why, and what is the DUE weight to give to things, than any particular outcome. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I’ll post a bit more tomorrow, but a quick glance over the current sources gives me the impression this may be a case of BLP1E. Pahunkat (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, here we go: So in the sources in the article, we have coverage from one source which is good to go (CBC), and one website (the national post) which may be considered reliable. However, this looks to be a case of WP:BLP1E where the only coverage of this person looks to be from the court case filed against him. Pahunkat (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Source 1 - Person's website. This won't contribute to notability.
 * Source 2 - For some reason this leads to a news landing page rather than an article, and I can't verify this article actually existed.
 * Source 3 - Passes all checks. CBC news is quite established in Canada.
 * Source 4 - Court filing, which is therefore a primary source.
 * Source 5 - A source from 'The national post'. Looks reliable to me but I've never come across such a site before.
 * Source 6 - A BBC profile of Sri Lanka. No coverage of the person there at all.
 * Source 7 - Another insert from 'The national post'.

I'd agree that the subject of the article has likely been editing this over time to white wash. Likely doesn't meet notability requirements either. Junius52 (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)