Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mithra Siriwardena (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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Mithra Siriwardena
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was subject to previous AfD, which was closed with no consensus. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, (of which there are currently 46 incumbents and historically over 1,000). The position does not warrant automatic notability. The only references provided are mentions in passing relating to his school boy cricket appearances and that he was a DIG, no evidence of notability in his own right. Clearly fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. Dan arndt (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (c · m)  03:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (c · m)  03:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (c · m)  03:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The sources just do not justify the article, and a postion that at times has had 1,000 holders is just not such to give notability. While it almost sounds similar to being a general with the "one star" reference, I am really starting to think we need a generalized guideline on notability of police. One issue that will come up is that it will be a different issue from a place like the US where a city policy chief really runs a department, while in some other countries the head of police in a specific city is just a sub-officer of a national or state/province level force. I also have to say my initial sense is that sources are more abundant for military than police leaders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. No, no, no, there have never been 1,000 DIGs at a time! There may have been that many over history, that's all. I've argued before that this is a senior enough rank to keep and I do so again. WP:SOLDIER accords all general officers notability; these officers have equivalent rank. I'm not sure why we would discriminate against police officers. DIGs are in charge of the policing of a province, which range from over 1 million population to nearly 6 million. Can you honestly see the deletion of an American police chief who headed a department responsible for policing an area of that size? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - The basic tenant of notability is whether the subject satisfies WP:GNG and on this basis the subject clearly fails. As previously stated the only references cited are mentions in passing relating to his school boy cricket appearances or that he was a DIG, there is no evidence of notability in his own right. There is no automatic right of notability for the position of DIG or its equivalent. In respect to a US police chief, these are elected officials as opposed to appointed civil servants - big difference. In any case a US police chief would also need to meet WP:BASIC to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: This subject can not be considered WP:Notable by any stretch of the imagination. Arguments for or against WP:Soldier are irrelevant because there is absolutely no "automatic inclusion clause but all articles are to depend on "significant coverage in independent, secondary sources". This applies to ANYBIO and WP:BASIC, that states, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This is supported by the policy Verifiability and the guideline Identifying reliable sources. This article is lacking on all counts. Otr500 (talk)


 * Comments: This article was nominated for deletion because of serious issues, An editor stated the article should be kept to "allow the article to be further improved.". Proof of external notability was provided: #1- Obit: Former DIG Siriwardena passes away, #2- Another obit: Former DIG Siriwardena passes away. Likely a press release with the same wording, and yet #3- a third obit gives some more insight into his cricket playing and a dab of Police history with: "He left college in 1958 to join the Police Department where he excelled as an Officer and a cricketer for the Police Department.". These were meant to add to the references already on the article. WP:GNG states: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent..
 * A problem with all this is the sources and references. The cricket playing is not notable, so WP:soldier is based on the subjects political career as the equivalent of a general, so significant coverage has to center on this for notability, and discounts trivial coverage.
 * The first reference (mainly about cricket), is vague and presents, "...and retired Police D.I.G's Mithra Siriwardena, and Sumith Liyanage." in the third paragraph of Anuruddha Polonowita to retire (By Sunil Thenabadu) section, and that is all. The second reference is about cricket, shows the subject played on the "Nalanda Team", and that is all. Unless someone can show "significant coverage" in reliable sources, this subject fails notability for inclusion. Otr500 (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. In relation to U|Otr500's comments above - #1 - Obit and #2 - Obit are exactly the same, the first is the HighBeam link to the Daily News obit, which simply confirms that he played schoolboy cricket, joined the police force, was a DIG, retired and died. #3 - Obit is an obituary prepared by a schoolboy friend and close friend of the family and therefore fails WP:GNG. Conclude with Otr500's comments about the current references, as above. Dan arndt (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. We usually accept an obit in a major national newspaper as proof of notability. The Daily News would appear to fall into that category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment an obituary does not confer notability. I accept that the Daily News obit satisfies WP:RS however it doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG which requires significant coverage in multiple sources. So far there is no evidence that the subject even comes close to satisfying WP:ANYBIO.Dan arndt (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, numerous AfDs have established that they do as long as they are in notable national newspapers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment and as previously identified in numerous AfDs - positions such as a DIG are not automatically notable. As per 's comments - ANYBIO and WP:BASIC, that states, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This is supported by the policy Verifiability and the guideline Identifying reliable sources. This article lacks any evidence that this individual is notable. Dan arndt (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   22:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, since this debate has commenced there has been a number of similar articles relating to DIGs which have been through similar AfDs and been deleted - this should be treated no differently. Dan arndt (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete--Per Dan and Otr.I don't need to think about other hypothetical American situations.OSE. Winged Blades Godric 04:36, 24 December 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.