Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DinuraCreations


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

DinuraCreations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Importance of the article and errors in the References. It is seems that this article is created for the promote of DinuraCreations (Some kind of Organization). In the References, Reference no 1 doesn't work. Reference no 2 is about Indian territory. References no 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 do not indicate clear relation with the Subject of the article. L Manju (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This proposal for deletion could be a possible result of an edit war. it is important to do edits with the neutral point of view. But not for personal beliefs. A new editor needs a reasonable period of time to improve an article. Dinuraeditions (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC) The user L Manju may have proposed the article for deletion merely as a personal matter. That user doing destructive edits that do not obey the wikipedia policy of editing. Please refer 15 November 2015 for evidence. -- Jetpet (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Attention please..
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now at best as the current sources are not noticeable of even minimally better general notability. SwisterTwister   talk  06:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It's not for promoting purposes and subject is about a non-profit organization located in Sri Lanka with a good notability enough to be kept on wikipedia. Dinuraeditions (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This needs solid sources though such as in-depth third-party news, magazines and journals sources. SwisterTwister   talk  08:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC) 01. I found this subject created as a redirect page to Music of Sri Lanka that was possibly given unnecessary weight to it. And then I performed a google search to find out any notability of it. There was a reasonably good coverage to assume a rough consensus. Merge or redirect was not fairly applicable to this subject. That was why I decided to add contents and improve it as a separate article within the policies and regulations of the encyclopedia. Thus the major suggestion of the nominator is naturally disputed because I have done the work having a good faith. 02. The first three references are directly related to the subject. The rest of references were useful to construct the consensus. Claiming that a reference does not work may not be a strong reason to delete an article. At the moment when I added the all references worked perfectly and I gathered the information through those references and some other local newspapers in their printed versions. All references are separated and independent from Wikipedia. I, a Wikipedia user, cannot be responsible for their behaviour in time being. Hereby, I honestly believe that letting this article remained on Wikipedia would not harm its encyclopedic values. Jetpet (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now Reasons;


 * Delete Seems somebody wants free publicity for their organization or site. --Lee (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - as currently sourced, does not meet WP:GNG, and searches did not turn up enough to help their notability. Also, the assertion of the nom having ulterior motives is not warranted: The nom re-added a prod tag after it was removed. They then re-added it a second time, and then subsequently self-reverted. Discussion on the nom's talk page indicate they were unaware of the no re-adding clause of PROD.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:44, 30 December 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.