Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sardha Wijesoma


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sardha Wijesoma

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not Notable - No evidence to support that the subject satisfies the criteria under WP:PROF. Article lacks any in-depth support of individual. Dan arndt (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮  JAaron95  Talk  18:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NACADEMICS #3, was a member of IEEE which is cited as an example at the criterion, also # 1, is a widely cited scholar, this shows 86 publications, total of 349 citations. Kraxler (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Amended. Kraxler (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - criteria #3 states the subject should be a 'fellow' of a major scholarly society. Being a mere member is signficantly different from being a fellow - to be a member all you need to do is apply and meet the basic membership criteria whilst to be a fellow, you have to be recognised by the institute for your signficiant contributions to the institute and the industry, it is a highly selective honor. Unless there is documented evidence that Wijesoma has been elevated from member to fellow then it clearly fails criteria #3. 349 citations is a relatively low number and is hardly considered to be a widely cited scholar - it does not meet criteria #1 either. Dan arndt (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The actual status of his membership is uncertain, he may have been just a "member", two grades nelow "fellow". I amended my rationale. The citation count is subject to interpretation. I'd like some other users more familiar with this criterion to comment. Kraxler (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * weak Keep - this is very borderline. I'm not sure 350 cites makes him notable. The fact that he also co-authored books which were cited another 600+ times tipped me to keep.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:35, 27 August 2015 (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.