Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Management of Sri Lanka


 * 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.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 21:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Institute of Management of Sri Lanka

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no assertion of notability. needs sources as fails WP:GN / WP:ORG Widefox ; talk 21:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am not very fond of all local schools and colleges of South Asia finding its way into Wikipedia (see my tagging of some Pakistani colleges), but this institution seems to be a national body established by a legislative act of Sri Lankan parliament (text here: and here: ). Its claims to international affiliations seems true as seen e.g. here: . It has been mentioned in Sri Lankan press (e.g.,, and membership of the Institute finds its way onto CVs of senior management: . If insufficiently sourced, relevant tags need to be added.  kashmiri  16:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I did substantial copyedit, now the article should look cleaner, albeit not perfect.  kashmiri 11:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * appears to be a press release, so not independent (no author is claimed, no guarantee of editorial control), so doesn't count as a WP:RS. There's still no secondary source, so fails WP:ORG. I doubt issues such as being a national body are relevant for notability. Widefox ; talk 09:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears to be a national professional body of some notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are national professional bodies intrinsically notable? (I only know about secondary schools). There's no secondary source still for meeting WP:ORG. Widefox ; talk 15:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not intrinsically notable, no. Depends what they are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ..then if we rely on coverage in secondary sources per WP:ORG right? Where are they? Widefox ; talk 18:17, 25 January 2013 (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.