Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsley C. Dassanayake


 * 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 keep. Further general discussion can continue on whether the Bronze Wolf Award is sufficient on WT:BIO, but there is a clear consensus here, and there is also his work on Braille to consider. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Kingsley C. Dassanayake

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG as it relies solely on primary sources i.e. those related to scouting. There is no coverage in reliable, published secondary sources. A Google search for Kingsley C. Dassanayake returns 27 results most of which are mirrors of the Wikipedia article or unreliable scouting websites (Facebook, blogs). Kingsley C. Dassanayake returns 17 results, almost all unreliable. We don't know what this guy did for a living, when he was born, if he's still alive or even what the "C" stands for. Therefore the only question is whether the subject meets WP:ANYBIO by virtue of being awarded the Bronze Wolf Award. I don't believe Bronze Wolf Award constitutes a "well-known and significant award or honor" - it's just another award made by an organisation to its own members. Nothing special.  obi2canibe talk contr 17:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here we go. Strong keep as meets WP:ANYBIO per being a recipient of the Bronze Wolf Award.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You and the other keep voters haven't explained why Bronze Wolf Award counts as a "well-known and significant award or honor". Looking at the Bronze Wolf Award article, it relies almost exclusively on scouting related WP:PRIMARY sources. There is no significant coverage in multiple published reliable secondary sources. This suggests not only that it isn't a "well-known and significant award or honor" but also that the Bronze Wolf Award article itself fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG.-- obi2canibe talk contr 15:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep based on ANYBIO. The statements made by the original proposer make it valid for it to be considered a stub, but not to delete it.Naraht (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Migrate to Draft: namespace There is potential for an article to be developed, but the reference material that is here at present is insufficient in my view for to to remain as an article. As a Draft it will be given time and a competent critique when submitted for approval. I am not keen, however, on messages on my talk page encouraging me to save improve an article because 'they' want to delete it. A Draft: namespace move seems to me to be a useful compromise. Fiddle   Faddle  08:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody asked you to "save" anything, that would have been WP:CANVASSING; the specific word was "improve", as you had weighed in on the Lake View Park article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look, I struck through the mistaken word "save" almost at once, and prior to your note, above. Fiddle   Faddle  15:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look, you struck through "save" but left it for all to see. Cute little smear.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Meets point 1 of ANYBIO having been awarded the Bronze Wolf Award. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. obi2canibe, you stated, "I don't believe Bronze Wolf Award constitutes a "well-known and significant award or honor" - it's just another award made by an organisation to its own members." So it appears the heart of your assertion about the notability of this individual (and others like him) is whether the Bronze Wolf Award is itself notable.


 * If the organization was a no-name local charity with a few dozen members in a single town, this criticism might be valid. You may want to know that this award has only been given a few hundred times since 1935, during which hundreds of millions of individuals throughout the world have taken part in Scouting, and that the award recognizes selected individuals for a life-time of service to their community (through sponsoring organizations like churches, civic organizations, educational institutions, and others). Within this world-wide community in many dozens of countries, this person is notable under point 1 of ANYBIO. If you don't believe this is true, then dispute the notability of the Bronze Wolf Award itself. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 17:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Point 1 - Yes, as you and the other scouts haven't challenged the assertion that this article fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, the only question is whether it qualifies under WP:ANYBIO.


 * Point 2 - Thank you for explaining why you believe the Bronze Wolf Award is a well-known and significant award, something the other scouts voting keep have failed to do. I have to disagree with your assertion that it's notable because the organisation has "hundreds of millions" members. As you are aware Wikipedia doesn't give credence to numbers but to what can be verified - in this case whether there is coverage in multiple published reliable secondary sources. There isn't. Even a member of WP:SCOUT isn't convinced that Bronze Wolves are notable.-- obi2canibe talk contr 22:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As any long-time WP editor knows, there are dozens if not hundreds of WP guidelines and standards, not all of which are in agreement. It's possible to fail an article on one criteria and support it based on another. The millions of past and present members of Scouting is not relevant to a discussion of whether WP is a democracy; it demonstrates that Scouting is a notable organization with support from civic groups, governments, churches, and hundreds of other organizations around the world. It is notable that from among these millions of members a few are selected to receive the highest award in Scouting. Within that world-wide organization (currently estimated to be 28 million members, which if it were a country, would make it the 46th largest country in the world), the Bronze Wolf Award is exemplary evidence of that person's achievements within that community. These individuals aren't usually newsmakers, however, making finding secondary and tertiary sources difficult. I don't believe there is a strong enough argument to delete these bios, and certainly the Keeps outnumber the Deletes. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 18:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. He got a Bronze Wolf Award FFS - those aren't handed out like sweeties. Only the Silver Wolf Award is a higher honour in Scouting. Endorse the arguments by User:Btphelps. (I haven't been involved in Scouting for over 50 years, but still know what being a Bronze Wolf means.)


 * See also Category:Recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award - 326 pages says something, does it not? Narky Blert (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, in the last 48 hours, there has been participation on the article by two or three Lankan IPs (2 are similar so unsure) and a registered Lankan editor. The new information is by and large unsourced, but it does two things. It fills in some important and interesting bio gaps, and it shows there is indeed something to be found of notability. obi2canibe has removed material posted a day ago-dirty pool during an AFD-you can wait for the afd to be over. cite-tagging is proper during debates, tag-bombing them to negate the fact that notability is getting a stronger case by the day is Gaming the system, and I would be happy to put extra pairs of eyes on it should it continue. Lay off and let this debate run its natural course.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Further, in the last 2 1/2 days, the information claimed to be your concern is being steadily answered. We do now know what this guy did for a living, when he was born, and even what the "C" stands for. Therefore I call into question your motives for removing such information, when simple cite-tagging would have accomplished enough, and I invite all others to likewise call into question your motives, especially after the snarky but basically sound advice timtrent posted on your talkpage.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I again caught tagbombing by obi2canibe trying to affect the afd by lying, as oldid=755946688 of 22:16, December 20, 2016 rectified any supposed copyvio issues, and I again invite all others to likewise call into question obi2canibe's motives. Are you that desperate to smear an AfD that you are clearly losing?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I am leaning towards keep on this one. The discussion above seems to boil down to whether the award is notable enough to confer notability to the recipient. I would say that it is, given the nature of the award, the size of the organization, and the fact that the award does receive coverage in independent sources (here is a recent example I found). Yes, there are many gaps in the bio, but given the subject's circumstances (being active more than 40 years ago in a country where English is a minor language), it is not surprising that Google searches turn up little. Moving to draft space is a tempting compromise, but is unlikely to help in this case because it will effectively "hide" it from readers who may be able to provide the required biographical information that is not easy to find. Placing a call for help at the Sri Lankan wikiproject may not prove very fruitful either, as there are only 43 page watchers there. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with AtHomeIn神戸 that this discussion boils down to whether a Bronze Wolf awardee is notable. In my view, because it is an internal award within the Scouting organization, it isn't. Most editors here who have !voted to Keep are also connected with Scouting. I have argued elsewhere that a similar argument could be made with being awarded as an IBM fellow. It is equally prestigious but it is also an internal award within an organisation and notably, not all recipients are deemed notable enough for an article. Moving to draft space is an acceptable compromise. -- HighKing ++ 16:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, this and and IBM fellow aren't even close. #1 look at the number of blue links on each page.  #2 there are many more IBM fellows given per year.  #3 IBM is a lot smaller than the total of world-wide scouting. Hobit (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In fairness, #2 I filled most of the blue links during a free period. But #3 377,757 employees versus 28 million members, fair play.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Although on the surface this appears to be a debate leaning strongly toward keep (and certainly it is close to that consensus), I feel that too many of the "strong" and "speedy" qualified !votes are from those heavily invested in scouting and similar topics. That is not a problem. nor is this a criticism; However, I do feel that to establish a clear consensus, input from contributors and AFD regulars outside of the field would be welcome, else we end up with undue biases. As such, I am relisting the debate for additional input. KaisaL (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, although it certainly needs more work, yet he received a significant honor. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The general issue of the Bronze Wolf is being considered elsewhere at a request for comment. I want to point out that this AfD has given little or no attention to his contribution to the blind. His involvement with Braille in Sri Lanka and his involvement in international organisations for the blind most likely makes him notable, but we perhaps meed more sources. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * keep award and claims of work with the disabled/blind make me think he's almost certainly notable. Finding sources from  Sri Lanka in that time period for someone involved in work like this is probably going to be a challenge (I'd tried).  But the scouts would have had good reason to give such a rarely given award (given their size) to him.  It's just going to be a matter of finding those sources. Hobit (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we have a good/proper reference that this person "invented" the Sinhalese Braille system? The references to date don't meet the criteria set out in WP:RS. -- HighKing ++ 21:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't find one. We have a former admin (who I think is unassociated with the scouts) who has added that elsewhere.  But as I said above, finding sources for something like this, in this place and time is rough. Hobit (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, those who argue that the Bronze Wolf Award is not significant because it is a "private/internal" award for which only people involved in that organisatuon are eligible, should look to the Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross. They are also only "available" to members of the respective organisations - the armed forces of the US and UK respectively. Both of which, btw, have far fewer members than the Scouts. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - In reply to Kintetsubuffalo's comments above, I am just following WP:V and removing unreferenced content. The only one gaming the system here is Kintetsubuffalo who is violating rules and at the same time claiming others are in violation of the same rules.-- obi2canibe talk contr 17:44, 14 January 2017 (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.