Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Balapatabendi


 * 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 primarily as there isn't a consensus around the significance of the book source due to editors' inability to access and assess it. I don't see this changing with another relist. Star  Mississippi  02:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

K. Balapatabendi

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

Fails WP: ANYBIO - non notable public servant - permanent secretary is not a notable position- it is a political appointee. Similarly a High Commissioner is not a notable position and in most cases is a political appointment. Neither reference provides any significant coverage about the individual. Dan arndt (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bilateral relations, Sri Lanka, Australia,  and New Zealand. Dan arndt (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. No inherent notability. I couldn't find any RSs searching via Google. Cabrils (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, I interpret Wikipedia_talk:Diplomatic_notability to mean ambassadors and High Commissioners are generally notable. I'm happy to be corrected, of course.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * you are referring to an essay/discussion piece not an adopted policy or guideline. Essentially individuals are presumed if they have received significant coverage in   that are,  of each other, and . None of the sources provided even come close to satisfy those requirements. Dan arndt (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete ambassadors are not inherently notable, in fact many ambassador articles have been deleted. This one does not meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think his involvement in negotiations during the civil war make him a notable individual. There appears to be substantial discussion in this light in A. S. Balasingham, Ē. Es Pālaciṅkam The Politics of Duplicity: Re-visiting the Jaffna Talks (2000) . Google books brings up a couple of other hits for "K. Balapatabendi", "Kusum Balapatabendi". There's some indication here that he's been involved in corruption scandals (although that particular news article is about his son). If someone is able to search Sinhala and Tamil sources, that would be helpful. The chairmanship of Sri Lankan Airlines bolsters the case for notability. Furius (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The most senior civil servant in a whole country is obviously inherently notable and there are enough sources per Furius. Reference to the diplomatic notability guideline is a red herring in this case. Atchom (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, the permanent secretary position is not automatically or inherently notable. The references/sources provided in the article are either broken or no longer exist. The Colombo Telegraph source that cited is about the individual's son. Being the chairman of Sri Airlines doesn't make the individual notable either - Still fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:ANYBIO - needs to demonstrate that there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources - not because an editor says he is. Dan arndt (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Furius and per WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: (With respect for your experience:) Furius' position is dismantled by Dan arndt's and LibStar's responses and comments. If you would like to challenge them please do so but asserting a vote purely on a point made earlier in the discussion that has since been refuted is not constructive to the discussion. The claim of WP:CSB here is spurious and a straw man argument. Cabrils (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't anywhere close to being "dismantled". Neither of them has said a word about the book by Balasingham and Es Pālaciṅkam, or any of the other books that have coverage of this person. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What books are you referring to? If there are reliable sources in books that include independent, significant coverage of the subject, then please add them to the page, doing so would likely resolve this discussion and I for one would reverse my vote. I too can see a list in Google books (that took about 8 seconds to create) that presumably Furius is referring to, but I can't easily access the content of any of them to make an assessment about the reliability of the content, and doing that real research is what is required here to have a meaningful discussion. Cabrils (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the book that I mentioned: A. S. Balasingham, Ē. Es Pālaciṅkam The Politics of Duplicity: Re-visiting the Jaffna Talks (2000), which is about a set of negotiations which Balapatabendi led. The fact that you can't access the book is not a valid reason for dismissing it (WP:OSO). Nor are we required to fix up the article in order to prevent deletion (WP:IMPATIENT). Furius (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment, the reference in the book is not significant coverage, merely a mention in passing. What are the other books that you are referring to - happy to check them as well. Dan arndt (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems rather strange that one mention should cover 37 separate pages. Are you sure that you have read enough of the book? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:25, 2 June 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.