Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saliya Aladeniya


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 08:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Saliya Aladeniya

 * A Sri Lankan soldier who died heroically. Author contests speedy, and there's an assertion of notability (he was promoted and honored posthumously). Of 11 unique Google results, it appears at least 7 are Wiki mirrors. Wikipedia is not a memorial and I don't see this particular soldier as notable. -- Fan-1967 17:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note Based on comments below, I'll change my vote to Keep and withdraw my nomination. As there have been delete votes, I don't believe this one's eligible for speedy close. (Can somebody find a source for this information with a date for the events listed? Also, can someone explain "(VWV WWV)" after the name?). Fan-1967 13:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should withdraw. This article does not even establish any proof that this person existed. I'm sure he does, of course, but that's not the point. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. And I don't believe every war hero from every time period of every country on the planet deserves an article. wikipediatrix 14:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have noted below one reliable source. It would certainly help if we could get a Sri Lankan editor to see if more, non-English, sources are available. Fan-1967 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep He was awarded the highest award for gallantry in the Sri Lankan army, the equivalent of the Medal of Honor or the Victoria Cross. We have articles for most of the recipients of those medals - List of Victoria Cross recipients by name - A etc. DJ Clayworth 17:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - appears to be a verifiable individual with encyclopaedic content to his name. Ghits are a terrible measure for people, places or things with names that don't use the Roman alphabet.  It seems he did receive the highest military honour in Sri Lanka, which certainly takes him past the infamous WP:BIO.  Veriable, encyclopaedic - I'm not sure what else there is. WilyD 19:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read this article? Not one sentence is sourced, and none of the external links mention Saliya Aladeniya. So, on what are you basing your statements? wikipediatrix 14:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the google hits does appear to be a reliable source, a Sri Lankan newspaper. The article does need cleanup and sourcing, and it appears the author may have difficulties with English. Fan-1967 14:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And on that basis alone, you find him notable? Shall we dole out articles to all war heroes everywhere on the planet who had one newspaper article about them? wikipediatrix 14:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On that basis, I find him verifiable. I find him notable based on his receiving the highest honor his country awards. Fan-1967 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but specifically, it's the "highest award for bravery". Hundreds of thousands of such medals have been awarded by all the countries in human history - are we going to give them all articles? Also, the newspaper article and this article aren't saying the same things. The newspaper article starts by saying this man sacrificed his life, but then goes on to say that he's classified MIA, and that his body was never recovered, and that some say "he was alive, but captured by the enemy". wikipediatrix 14:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, dead or alive doesn't matter to notability. If there are discrepancies in the article that's a reason for improving the article, not deleting it. Secondly there are not hundreds of thousands of such medals awarded. There are only a thousand or so VCs awarded, and it's been around longer than most such medals. Thirdly Wikipedia is not paper. There are probably fewer soldiers like this than high schools. DJ Clayworth 14:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I bring up the "dead or alive" matter not to question notability on that basis, but to point out that the article's lone source doesn't seem to be sure what it is reporting. Just because Wikipedia is not paper doesn't mean anything goes or that WP:RS is out the window, otherwise I'd make an article about my Uncle Ned. Any why are you specifically talking about "VC"s? I wasn't. I'm talking about any country's "highest award for bravery", period. wikipediatrix 14:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And long-established precedent says that anyone who receives the VC or Congressional Medal of Honor is automatically considered notable. By extension, that clearly should apply to any country's highest military honor. Fan-1967 14:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Very noble and altruistic, but I can't agree with the logic of that extension. Without naming controversial names, there have been countries where, during certain times, "highest medals for bravery" have been churned out en masse and practically given to anyone who petitioned for one, and many more who didn't. (I won't go as far as Kmaguir1 and say that some countries are more important than others, but I will venture that some countries' medals are more important than others.) Aside from all that, anyway, my main concern is the lack of verifiable info about the subject of this article from quality sources. wikipediatrix 15:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. But Sri Lanka itself is not as notable as Britain, nor whatever awards it issues as notable as the Victoria Cross.-Kmaguir1 20:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to that statement, for reasons that I hope are obvious. DJ Clayworth 13:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 21:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per award meets WP:BIO. Google hits not really a measure for a Sri Lankan soldier. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We must guard against making ethnocentric judgments. :) Dlohcierekim 03:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's motto is "verifiability, not truth". It's true that Google hits are less likely to be able to verify this man, but that doesn't mean we should give him an article in the absence of that verification. The article doesn't even prove this man even ever existed. wikipediatrix 14:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, what Kmaguir1 says is false. Punkmorten 06:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. From WP:RS: "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" regarding "apparently important claims that are not widely known." And, from the section "Check multiple sources": "If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased, or their biases are at cross purposes, then you may have a reliable account." wikipediatrix 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.165.175.139 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep.- Wikipedia belongs to all nations. so if Englishmen can add information of there heros, why Sri Lankans cannot?????????????


 * Keep- Yes, I'm agree with that. sl_1986

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sl 1986 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - According to wiki rules (Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered). As in article he is a hero to all Sri Lankans. Because of that i don't think that he had any relationship with the author.
 * You're only supposed to "vote" once (not that this is a vote). wikipediatrix 19:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

and the (WWV) is.... Weera Wickrama Vibhushanaya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sl 1986 (talk • contribs)
 * (VWV) was wrong, it should be (WV), It's means Weerodara Vibhushanaya.
 * Comment. For the record, a user called Wiki man2 has posted a "Keep" vote to the discussion page by mistake, with the message "I'm agree with that, wikipedia is belongs to all nations. Don't be so rude", which is quite similar to messages left here by sl_1986 and 222.165.175.139. All three of these users joined Wikipedia today, incidentally. wikipediatrix 19:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - yeah yeah, we two are in same computer lab now and discussing about this article. :D :D, but we swear to god, we don't know about that 222.165.175.139 guy, we just agreed to his/her comments, just b4 now we didn't had any wiki log, that's why we create those. wiki man2


 * Comment - Quite funny ha? :D :D sl_1986


 * Keep per Fan-1967; the Sunday Times of Lanka article seems plausible. WP:OSTRICH leads me to think that some effort should have been made to check Sinhalese sources, which appears not to be the case as yet. However, I would like more sources for the article, and more context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems notable to me, but the article needs more work. In particular, Sinhalese sources should be checked and cited. There must be an official citation that goes with the medal, for example. And the external links not directly related to the subject of the article should be moved, say to Sri Lankan Army. Rbraunwa 10:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't know why is this people trying to delete this article. Lahiru_k (Talk)


 * Keep. Hey Kmaguir1, May be Sri Lanka is not as notable as Britain with regards to its size and so may be the awards. But the actions may 1000 times as notable as the Britain, mind you! And this too once again "Wikipedia belongs to all nations". Kaushini 09:22, 1 sept 2006 (UTC)


 * 2c worth - All nations need to be represented on wikipedia. If it were a vote, mine would be a Weak Keep, weak only because this article needs much more work especially in the objective side as one persons terrorist is another's freedom fighter. We in South Africa have also been down this sad road. Plus there needs more independant sources. --Jcw69 18:15, 2 September 2006 (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.