Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaka Dewapriya (2nd nomination)


 * 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. NYScholar has brought to the fore sources which might allow article to meet GNG, and at the bare minimum suggest that there may still be more sources to use. I frankly can't understand much of what Jetskere is saying, but it appears to be editorial in nature and thus not in the purview of an AfD. Take it to talk. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Malaka Dewapriya
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject still lacks sufficient notability according to general notability guideline and has been nominated for the same reason before, when the result was deletion. See Talk:Malaka Dewapriya (more than one section) for current discussion and link to previous discussion: Articles for deletion: Malaka Dewapriya. --NYScholar (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[Update request for closure: I request that this review be closed now. Please see my own and Michael Q. Schmidt's subsequent comments acknowledging vast improvement of this article since I first posted the AfD template. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)]
 * [Please see . Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)]

Related comments
Please see subsequent discussion in Talk:Malaka Dewapriya: several comments [below (now in )] do not take into account when Susitha R. Fernando (Sachie Fernando) wrote her news articles based on interviews with the subject in Sunday Times. It was when he was still an undergraduate and graduate student.
 * I suggest that one read the sources and not just count the number of them and also that one notice the relative chronological dates of publication. Thanks.
 * I also suggest that editors not involved in the subject of Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan film, and other Sri Lankan topics be the ones who evaluate the notability of this subject, from a neutral not involved point of view. As one not previously involved in any Sri Lanka topics, I see myself as a more neutral observer than those who have had previous involvements with Sri Lankan subject editing in Wikipedia or those previously involved in the earlier deletion of the article from Wikipedia (see that linked discussion above).
 * Not enough more recently-published reliable third-party notable sources have been added to this article in the past year to alter the previous decision to delete it. --NYScholar (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been working over the past few days to try to correct this problem. Whether I and others have supplied by now enough reliable third-party published and verifiable sources to enable others to decide to "keep" the article is currently being discussed.  The article is currently being worked on further by at least two editors.  --NYScholar (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that I may have supplied enough more recent sources and developed the EL sec. further enough to make the subject seem more currently notable (not just student work but more recent work (2007 and 2008). --NYScholar (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This Structure
This New article structure is who created By NYScholar. It is appearing Dewapriya’s most of self publications. I believe there are of Other Primary sources in Sri Lanka Language and Other International web sites. There is no other Sri Lankan text in English or on the internet. That is why You can find out lots of Susitha fernando's and Sunday Times articles. This situation is Relate To my other articles which I Edit. Nira Wickramasinghe J B Disanayake, Shelton PayagalaDhamma Jagoda There is author for everything .Nothing outside of author and text.( I am thinking about this neutral Pont of view)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetskere (talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Last I looked, it wasn't a nonstarter to be able to cite a foreign language article. Someone can be asked to verify a fact in translation, so can always be checked. We used those a lot in the 3mos flamewars five years ago in the Tsushima, Tsushima Islands and various nationalisticly driven related controversies which I mediated with Mel Etitis, sans any language skills. Whether the source is reputable is still under the notablilty guidelines of course, which was the key in the end. Unsupported web content went out, and thereafter things got simple... all that was before Cites were available. So if it's a source... use it. (With a quote and translation of quote would be best.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabartus (talk • contribs) 13:19, 11 February 2009
 * [But it is necessary that the English language in which the article is expressed be idiomatic English. If the editor translating from the foreign language into English has not got a strong command of the English language, it will create even more problems for this article, and we will be back to square one with it.  Please look at the editing history of this article. Thank you. There have been real problems with lack of familiarity and lack of adherence to Wikipedia's own core editing policies and citation guidelines pertaining to WP:BLP and Notability.  It is not clear to me that Jetskere understands that the work done to this article since February 3, 2009 has been done in an attempt to improve its quality and the quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.  Please do not encourage such misperceptions.  The "structure" of the article has not even been an issue and the use of the term in the above heading is further misleading.  Thanks.  --NYScholar (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)]

String of votes

 * Weak Delete Whilst the article has a large number of references, if one excludes self-published sources, simple directories or exhibition catalogues (which do not establish notability), the references that remain would appear to amount to a number of articles in a single Sunday newspaper. WP:RS is slightly coy about the status of newspapers as regards notability, merely remarking that the "quality" press is of more weight in establishing notability. In my view, it carries considerable weight where in the newspaper the article is carried. Articles about the subject in the main newspaper, as news articles carry some weight. Articles in the arts supplement that are essentially coffee-table and waiting-room fodder carry very little weight. As such, I can't accept that this series of articles establishes any sort of notability. Mayalld (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Struck vote to enable this mess of an AFD to be put out of its misery. Mayalld (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 *  Weak Strong Keep as article does have sourcing and looks like it will be has been greatly improved by some decent copyedit. The assertion of being a first Sri Lankan to acomplish a notable act needs clarification. Per WP:CSB, I'd recommend cleanup, nor deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My hat is off to User:NYScholar who went at the article with a single-minded determination to make it shine. I was going to pout a bit as I had not weighed in on the article itself... but I know the work of a Master when I see it. It is rare to see someone nomoinate an article for deletion and then himself turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. Well done.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A good scholar should be able to argue both sides, but few actually do. Plastikspork (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * An rare event which explains my pleased surprise.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient notability to meet inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep You ahve to dig a bit for the good refs, and the student thing threw me a bit. But there is substantial coverage and recognition to warrant an article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep he has two articles written about him in The Sunday Times (it's [unsourced] Wikipedia page reports it as the second larges English Language newspaper in the country, after one owned by the state), seems to establish notability to me.--kelapstick (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:CSB, as cited by Mr. Schmidt. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like it meets notability requirements to me across a range of subjects.  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- why not question notability of articles on geosciences or math? Stop wasting people's time, and add content. // Fra nkB 17:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [Before you accuse good-faith editors of "wasting people's time" in asking for a deletion review of much prior versions of this article, you need to consult the article's history when I encountered it, with its prior template and the previous deletion decision 268246651: if anyone's time has been "wasted", it's mine. (Scroll up to top). --NYScholar (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (cont.) Please see User talk:Fabartus: if you can "in good conscience" "no longer support this project" why are you commenting here at all? Please Be polite: this kind of comment made obviously without consulting the article's long controversial deletion history sets a very poor example for newer editors. --NYScholar (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)]


 * Strong delete. Non-notable, may well become notable, but not every one who has  film shown at a short film festival becomes Quentin Taratino, not every drama student becomes Harold Pinter. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The very fact that an article of such length can be twritten and sourced to reliable sources show someone thinks he is notable enough to write about in the real world. Winning medals at fimlm fests and being published as writer combine to make a minor notable person.Yobmod (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Query re: procedure for closure
[Can an administrator close this review now? --NYScholar (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)]

[Or, does it Does this AfD have to stay open for 5 days after nomination so that more people can have an opportunity to weigh in (to consider the notability of the subject, [and of the sources being cited in the article] which is the main issue raised initially; that template has been removed, but that has been the main issue). There is still one delete vote. I am not sure that this discussion can be closed before 5 days. Perhaps an experienced administrator can review both the first (archived) discussion and this one and advise here. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just updated the article on Sunday Times, which made a statement about its relative circulations numbers with no supporting source that turns out to have been erroneously misleading. Its estimated circulation figures come in beneath those of 3 other English-language Sunday newspapers in Sri Lanka, making it less notable than apparently thought earlier. --NYScholar (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC) There was no source given to support the statement cited in another comment above that it is "the second larges[t] English Language newspaper in the country, after one owned by the state" and that appears to be untrue. --NYScholar (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There have also been some questions raised on user talk page of one of the main editors about whether that editor is another sockpuppet of earlier banned creators and contributors to this article. I do not know the answer to those questions.  --NYScholar (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Jetskere. There has not yet been a response to those questions posed by another user. --NYScholar (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone can create and Edit any kind of Article to Wikipedia.I am not Same Guy.If that article was going to delete you should find out those problems to that article. I believe all writings are author basis.Author is the writer.I cam make a example from this new editing foot notes ''unique feature of the festival is that length dramas and short dramas will be held together with alternative theatre,, . those are totally NYScholar personal ideas. i believe this is very good way to make delete to concider about quality of one article. but you should make this point of view to New york basis articles too. (Jets (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
 * There is nothing "personal" about my editing of the article. It is really important that those who edit English Wikipedia have a strong command of idiomatic English. Correcting such errors really is extremely time-consuming and has nothing to do with anything "personal"; it has to do with basic knowledge of the English language and of Wikipedia's core editing policies and related editing, style, and citation guidelines.  Please see WP:AGF and WP:NPA.  Thank you.  --NYScholar (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
The statement that Jetskere has put within italics above is not mine; [the part falsely attributed to me as if the words were my "personal" view] is actually a direct quotation from the source cited and presented precisely as a quotation. Clearly, Jetskere misses that. --NYScholar (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Item currently numbered as Note 18 (within quotation marks): Note 18 (Quotation of words from the source, exactly as stated by the source [not me]). --NYScholar (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[Updated note # due to later revisions. --NYScholar (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)]
 * Moreover, that source is the full citation that I was able to glean from the URL inserted as an EL by Jetskere earlier--it would be helpful if s/he read the source that s/he linked: I realized that it does not substantiate details of the production of Pinter's plays [which Jetskere had problematically inserted in One for the Road, and (in so doing) had misindicated its source(s)--actually, not identifying what the actual source(s) of the details was or were]; I corrected that problem as a result of that realization in the other article, leading me to this one initially. --NYScholar (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [Note: After some work, I have discovered that the unacknowledged source is the self-published Website of Malaka Dewapriya; whereas that site can be cited in the article on him, it is not a reliable third-party published source and cannot be used as a source for One for the Road (Harold Pinter play). One would need a more more reliable third-party published source if one were to cite it in that article, though I still do not think the production notable enough to refer to there. --NYScholar (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)]
 * For original contexts of the above situation, please see One for the Road#One For the Road Sri Lanka Production (an amateur student production directed by Dewapriya, which I have removed from the Pinter play article, where it was inappropriately inserted by Jetskere [in my view]). I followed the URLs inserted by Jetskere and was led to the problems in this article on Malaka Dewapriya.  For the conflict of interest that seems apparent to me and other editors [Cf. first AfD discussion linked at top], see the user pages of those listed at top of Talk:Malaka Dewapriya; particularly User:Malakadew, who appears to be the subject of this article and a sockpuppet of blocked/banned/deleted earlier editors. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It really does appear that one or more editors with conflicts of interest pertaining to Sri Lankan-related subjects is misusing Wikipedia (Gaming the system) to promote those Sri Lankan-related subjects, including in their own user and talk pages, and even these project pages; these types of activities breach WP:LOP, espec. Neutral point of view. --NYScholar (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken closure
I did not withdraw my nomination of this article for deletion. I had thought of doing that, then crossed that out, because, while working on trying to improve this article, I have been finding more and more discrepancies in the material inserted by earlier editors and what reliable sources actually document. The subject is still less notable than might appear.

Today I examined the list of "Student Guests" for the 10th International Student Film Festival more closely, and I realized that this subject was not "the first" Sri Lankan whose film was selected for an "internationally-recognized" student film festival, as the local Sri Lankan newspaper article based on an interview with him states; he was one of two Sri Lankan students whose films were selected for that festival; I've revised the presentation of that information and cited the source. [On the basis of being such a "first", there is no article on the other Sri Lankan student filmmaker. --NYScholar (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)]

As many people reviewing this AfD have been assuming that he is a "first" in this regard and have been basing their sense of his "notablity" almost entirely on that, I draw people's attention to this reality.

'''The danger of having people create and edit articles on themselves is a breach or violation of both the general notability guideline and Wikipedia's core editing policy of neutral point of view. In taking a lot of time to edit this article, I have been trying to save it; but vast doubts remain about how it got into Wikipedia in the first place and residual sense remains in the logical reasons for its intial deletion a year ago.'''

In the space of one year, this subject has not become more notable than he was in 2008. It is the way the article has been puffed up to reflect the subject's own perspective on himself that misleads. I've tried to cut out as much of that as possible and to indicate what the actual sources are. I would like this article to remain in the AfD category for its full time, so that administrators can take a look at its entire history (from creation to present) to see whether or not the subject is indeed notable enough for this article in Wikipedia. I also refer administrators to the sockpuppets involved in editing its past versions, and refer to what appears to be the Wikipedia user identity of the subject, User:Malakadew (one of the sockpuppets of previously blocked and deleted users), whose user page I have marked for speedy deletion due to its breaches of Wikipedia user page guidelines as it is clearly an attempt at additional self-promotion. [edited, since I've learned that the user is indefinitely blocked and cannot edit using this screen name.] --NYScholar (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC) It makes no sense for there to be a self-promotional user page for an indefinitely blocked user. --NYScholar (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC) The page was recently (Feb. 2009) edited by Jetskere (cf. contributions history via with that of  User:221.162.72.115 via ), but it should be deleted, in my view. --NYScholar (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)] [Updated: the user page (User:Malakadew) has been deleted, which is why it is now red-linked. --NYScholar (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)]

Residual notability doubts
I think that the notability of this subject as a subject of a biography of a living person in Wikipedia is still dubious because I have actually examined and read the sources and agree with the arguments provided initially by the editor who prematurely closed this review. I think there are still questionable tactics relating to this article prior to my encountering it (before Feb. 9)–See Feb. 3. version at 268246651 for comparison. Even if it is kept ultimately, Wikipedia really needs to confront and discuss this matter with those involved in misleading Wikipedia readers in editing this article (see 1st [archived] deletion review linked at top). --NYScholar (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

[The user identity previously blocked indefinitely somehow returned to engage in the same activities for which he was blocked; yet I can see no evidence that the block listed ever expired.Block log. It appears that that user may be editing Wikipedia under another or other additional sockpuppets since 2008. [Administrative aid would be helpful here.] --NYScholar (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)]

There are lots of resources and link on the internet. I was not found any link about that other director’s information on internet. If you refer that site http://fest.tau.ac.il/search_film.asp?act=filmview&subact=film&formKeyword=life%20circle&flid=838 There is no anything about another director or his films. NYSCHOLAR mention that my mistake about that previous footnote. I want to say that ‘’armature student drama productions ‘’ like writing is belongs to him. There is no any data to say that production student ,amateur or not. It is same for the student exhibitions head line. And I find out Academy Schloss Solitude  not a training institute .it is  professional art fellowship center. I can this writing is dominants writes perspective. As well as I saw one of foot note, Sachie Fernando he bracket [Susitha ]. Anybody can make difference kind of interpretations and argument. I invite to another writer to compare those comments and arguments. And there is no way find out if somebody going to crate and one article previously is delete or not. All Not good quality article deletion policy should be related to all articles in the world. But it should not be a one new York man or woman ‘s one argument to partial. (Jets (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2009 (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.