Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunethradevi Pirivena


 * 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 merge to Pirivena.  Sandstein  09:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sunethradevi Pirivena

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Queried speed delete as copyvio :: RaviC at 18:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC) wrote in my user talk page that "... The Wikipedia article dates back to 2012, but the article it is supposedly copied from was published in 2014. It is thus a copy from Wikipedia. ...". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As I recalled correctly, I had only created a stub of the article. This edit by an IP added the extra content which may be a copyvio (from another source) or not.  I suggest keeping the stub as I had originally created it, without the offending content. --RaviC (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * given that the bulk of the item is a clear copyright infringement, it’s hard to tell if the subject is notable or not.. suggest you strip it back to your original edits and then we can assess it from there. Dan arndt (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 07:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 07:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. --RaviC (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to Pirivena which would improve the target article, which is rather bare bones. At present, there's insufficient sourcing to justify a stand-alone article. Perhaps protect the redirect to prevent the repeat of the copyvio situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge at this stage I would have to agree with that it is essentially a stub article, which would be better served populating the article on Pirivena. Dan arndt (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge Yeah, merge it to Pirivena. A sentence or two on each of the "types" and "notable instances" would improve the Pirivena article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2018 (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.