Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karunatilaka Amunugama


 * 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. I'm going to close this as "no consensus to delete" but I want to see an RfC (at WP:NPOL and with notes at WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:DIPLOMAT essay at least) about whether being an unelected holder of a top-level political office for major a country (such as an ambassador) represents sufficient notability by itself to justify inclusion as an article, because this is clearly the principal point of disagreement. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Karunatilaka Amunugama

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT, simply being a former ambassador for a country does not confer automatic notability. Lacks significant or in depth coverage and therefore fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Ambassadors to such significant countries as China and Japan should always be considered notable, despite what the deletionists will no doubt claim. This is common sense. He is also a permanent secretary (i.e. the professional head of a government department). We usually consider them to be notable too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely zero inherent notability in being head of government department nor being an ambassador to China or Japan. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You continue to have a strange definition of notability. The head of a government department isn't notable? Really? You genuinely stand by that statement, do you? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. There is no inherent notability in such positions. Please state actual notability guideline which gives automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, you confuse Wikipedia with a bureaucracy where imaginary rules trump common sense and nothing is determined by discussion or opinion. See the second entry at WP:POLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You mix up "common sense" which is really your opinion with established consensus . You invent criteria first that all ambassadors are notable to all ambassadors to major countries are notable, now it's all heads of government departments are notable. What's more surprising is not once on any AfD concerning ambassadors have you ever bothered to search for evidence of sources which is actually the best way to establish notability.  The fact you spend time arguing non established inherent notability instead of finding sources says it all. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're getting confused, I'm afraid. I'm not inventing criteria. I'm expressing an opinion. That's what AfD discussion is all about. If it was just about quoting policies then we wouldn't bother having these discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Diplomats and heads of government departments can get articles if those articles are substantive enough to be more than just a mere statement that they exist, and sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG. But neither diplomats nor bureaucrats get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, if the sourcing is as minimal as it is here. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * agreed. Necrothesp has a habit of assigning inherent notability rather than actually making the effort to find sources to support a keep !vote. It's bordering on lazy that he never looks for sources in AfDs instead using the failed non consensus that position X gets a free pass keep. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You claim to be using common sense when everyone else has put a case for delete. That's a strange form of common sense. LibStar (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * delete fails WP:BIO. Coverage merely confirms he held the ambassador position rather than him being subject of coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. A diplomat can get an article if he can be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, but does not get any automatic presumption of notability just for the fact of existing as a diplomat. I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if somebody can beef the sourceability up well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but nothing here gives him an automatic "keep because he exists, who needs sourcing?" pass. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete A search for news sources finds nothing better than one-sentence mentions, which is not quite enough, in my opinion, to clear GNG, even though there are quite a few of them. The positions he has held are also below the level required for WP:NPOL; but this is a close call. If members of parliament are considered notable, one may certainly make the argument that foreign secretaries are also inherently notable...Vanamonde (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Does he not meet WP:NPOL#1? The office he has held can be identified as international or at least national. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * he is not an elected politician. LibStar (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As Libstar says, his is not an elected office, so isn't really covered under that criterion. Vanamonde (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Pls see below /Original comment: does not meet WP:NPOL & insufficient coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the op of their professor ambassadors to major nations do have notability. The consensus has not always supported it, but it's compatible with what we do in other professions. I also take into account the difficulty in findand working with sources from the country involved.  DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * being ambassador to "major nation" does not give free pass to notability. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Just being an ambassador, by itself, doesn't give a pass. However, we're talking about an individual that has served in major, important posts. And he's also been mentioned by reliable sources, just unfortunately not in that much detail. I'm somewhat persuaded by the arguments to keep this page. We're not talking about some random, no-name politician here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. I think the consensus is that diplomats who have held three or more ambassador-level posts, or to/from major "imperial or world powers" ranks as notable. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the consensus. There is no such thing. You're just inventing notability criterion to suit this discussion. LibStar (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- switch vote taking into consideration WP:POLOUTCOMES & being an ambassador to a major country. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2016 (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.