Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chitrananda Abeysekera


 * 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. per result of AfD and removal of copyvio Valley2 city ‽ 18:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Chitrananda Abeysekera

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Possible copyvio, since it says "This article was also published in "Swarnamali" Poetry Collection by Chitrananda Abeysekera in 1984." ViperSnake151 13:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Keep - Please close this AFD. The key diff is here: . That note is a poorly-formatted reference saying that one of the poems in the list was published in multiple collections, NOT an indication that this article is a copyvio. Looking over the history, it appears to have been organically built by two contributors and not a copyvio. JRP (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, there was a separate section which I missed which also claimed to be a reprint from another source. I've removed the whole section. There are enough formatting and terminology issues here that I could also be wrong about the citation above, BUT with the offending text gone I stand by my keep. JRP (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The quoted article by my friend seems to have been removed. User:HumanFrailty 03:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * '''keeep' needs to clean to the standards of wikipedia --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Copyvio gone. Article needs some pruning though. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't understand the relisting. This was nominated as a copyright violation, and the offending text was removed nine minutes after the nomination. Why are we still discussing this after nine days? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2009 (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.