Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumith Edirisinghe


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 21:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sumith Edirisinghe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of the article is merely a senior police officer. There is nothing contained in the article that establishes the subject's notability - fails WP:ANYBIO. The references only provide a mention of the subject - merely establishing that he exists. The article has been tagged for improvement since August 2015, without any change. Dan arndt (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 01:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. He holds the rank of Deputy Inspector-General of Police. In Sri Lanka, which has a national police force, a DIGP is in charge of all the police in a province and is therefore responsible for the policing of a population of a couple of million or more. I think that makes officers of this rank sufficiently notable for articles, given that we consider British chief constables and police chiefs of largish American cities, who usually have a lot less policing responsibility, to be notable enough for articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - We don't have a policy which gives auto-notability for police. Even if it where there, I don't think every DIG would be allowed to have an article. According to the article Deputy inspector general of police, It (DIG) is the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service. And I don't think that rank warrants auto-notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO, delete.— UY Scuti Talk  15:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that we consider all military general officers notable under WP:SOLDIER; they can hold the fifth most senior rank in an army! Why would the officers of a national police force be any less significant? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The basic principle is that the subject is presumed to be notable if it has received 'significant coverage' in 'reliable sources' that are independent of the subject. There is no evidence supplied that provides any coverage apart from that the subject exists. A third tier rank in the police force is nowhere near equivalent to a general or a top-level military command position. It is worth noting that even the current Inspector General of Police hasn't an article on wikipedia. Dan arndt (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully suggest that if you think a DIGP of a national police force is "nowhere near equivalent" to a brigadier-general (who we consider to be inherently notable) then you know very little about the command structure in either the military or the police! In actual fact, a DIGP wears similar insignia to an army major-general. And it is irrelevant whether his superior officer has an article or not yet; he's clearly worthy of one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point an individual is not just notable because of the rank that they might have obtained - they should be notable for their achievements, which needs to be detailed in independent reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think you're missing the point that reaching a rank of this stature is an achievement! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 14.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 08:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - While I understand Necrothesp's viewpoint, I don't think the comparison between military and national police holds up. In my opinion, this would be much more akin to the Executive Assistant Director at the FBI, which also does not give inherent notability. And without the inherent notability, this individual does not pass WP:GNG, as searches turned up nothing but brief mentions, and few of those.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:47, 22 November 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.