Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ioma Rajapaksa


 * 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 and redirect to Gotabaya Rajapaksa. As noted by the relisters, none of the "keep" opinions are of any substance: they assert that the person is notable, but do not attempt to address the "delete" side's argument that there is no substantial mcoverage in reliable sources.  Sandstein  20:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Ioma Rajapaksa

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:ANYBIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources - noting that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The individual is not automatically notable simply because she is married to a significant politician. Should be redirected to Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Dan arndt (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as the article fails WP:GNG. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Question She is the spouse of the president of Sri Lanka (Mahinda Rajapaksa), doesn't that make her notable? From the page on WP:NOTINHERITED I see this statement: Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , it also states: ''can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What about the article about common outcomes of WP:Afd discussions which says "The spouse of the head of state or government is usually regarded as notable? I realize that 'usually' is subjective, but the quote from  is from the previous paragraph at WP:NOTINHERITED which is talking more generally about famous relatives, not a national first lady. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - based on the guidelines from Wikipedia that I cited above, she's spouse of a head of state and therefore usually notable. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: On the face of it, most of the keep arguments are not very persuasive. Notability is not inherited or inherent. It requires verifiable evidence, evidence which is pretty much lacking here. Google hits do not equate with meeting GNG. This needs more discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: per above from my northern neighbor Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on comments above, seeing lots about her in Google news. I'm opening minded to changing my mind if you think I've misinterpreted the comments above, so tag me if you think you can convince me otherwise and I'll revisit this decision. CT55555 (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per news hits and WP:POLOUTCOMES. It's the nominator's burden to explain why this article should be an exception. pburka (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - as per WP:ANYBIO the key issue is there is no significant coverage about the individual in the sources supplied, just a mention is passing. She is not notable in her own right I disagree that just becuase she is married to a notable individual does not make her notable. Dan arndt (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There appears to be enough coverage of the subject to merit an article. As an example, article mentions that the subject holds dual citizenship. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ioma Rajapaksa is the first lady of sri lanka. Sri lanka uses the title first lady frequently to describe Ioma. I would understand not creating a wikipedia page for the former president of sri lanka's wife as the president said that he did not want his wife to hold the title first lady.
 * Ioma Rajapaksa is mentioned as mahinda rajapaksa wife in this talk. She is the spouse of gotabaya rajapaksa, the current president of sri lanka. Gotabaya uss the title first lady for his wife foundly. This means that the international community should also label her as first lady of sri lanka, thus meaning a wikipedia page for ioma and future first ladies of sri lanka should have a wikipedia page, unless, they are not labelled as one Theeveralst (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment as previously stated it clearly fails WP:ANYBIO all that has been provided as references are merely mentions in passing there has not been any evidence of 'significant coverage' about the individual. Dan arndt (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Passes WP:BIO and referenced articles show WP:SIGCOV.  GoldMiner24 Talk 02:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you identify where the sources are that demonstrate significant coverage - all the references are mentions in passing merely demonstrating she is the wife of the president, nothing more. Dan arndt (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * KEEP as per . Though the article might not be great, it passes GNG as the spouse of any country's president, the first lady, is notable as per WP:COMMONSENSE. --- Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 04:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, so therefore this then overrides WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO? Dan arndt (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete "Common outcomes" is a non-binding essay that sums up past outcomes, and the "common sense" special pleading is no substitute for actual sources, especially in a BLP. The actual rules (WP:INVALIDBIO) are clear that a notable person's spouse isn't automatically notable. Looking at the article, source 1 doesn't mention the subject; source 2 has no prose and is just an image caption; and 3, 4 and 5 are not secondary or independent. The Subday Observer piece posted above is a passing mention. Whoever said above that the sourcing meets BIO and GNG (both of which require sigcov in 2+ sources) hasn't seriously looked at it. On top of this one can add WP:BLP1E, or rather BLP0E since no notable events are associated with the topic. Avilich (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2022 (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.