Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charitha Herath


 * 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 keep. Consensus is clear now, with only the nominator still supporting deletion Davewild (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Charitha Herath

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual - fails WP:BIO. The individual, Charitha Herath, was a minor government official and a non-notable academic. Essentially this article appears to be a WP:COATRACK. Dan arndt (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Change to keep - sources found support GNG Delete per nom - minor coverage but not enough needed  —Мандичка YO 😜 04:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep:- Subject of the article is a Senior Public official and former Chairman of Central Environmental Authority. Subject of the article meet WP:GNG Per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. I found Lankae News, Colombo telegraph, News First, Lanka News, Sunday observer, BBC News, Vivalanka News, Global Tamil News, Srilankans News, Lanka Channels, Ceylon Today, Lanka Sri News, Sri Lanka Catering to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources found by Wikicology shows some notability. AlbinoFerret  03:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment just because a person exists does not necessarily make them notable. Essentially the individual should meet WP:BIO or WP:NACADEMIC, in this case we have a minor bureaucrat/minor academic that does not appear to have achieved anything significant or notable. None of the references cited by User:Wikicology seem to establish anything otherwise.Dan arndt (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * cannot be serious! Notability is not the same as achievement. Wikipedia often keep articles on the basis of notability and not achievement. Subject of an article need not meet every criteria. These one clearly meet WP:GNG and the sources provided is not only an evidence of existence but notability.  Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * if you consider that your references establish the subject's notability then why haven't you included then in the article to demonstrate how. Dan arndt (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources exist as references for multiple reasons and they are primarily used to validate claims on Wikipedia. I really don't have the time to expand the article so why the need to add citations? For example, if am interested in written on his criticism, I may find Global tamil News helpful and therefore add it to the article. That's how things work here. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment so whilst you consider the individual is notable don't believe that the article should include those referenced sources that you believe establish its notability. The references in the article clearly do not establish notability merely that he is a minor bureaucrat for a junior government agency and a non-notable academic. Dan arndt (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ he clearly meets WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI I changed my vote to keep —Мандичка YO 😜 18:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.