Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sardha Wijesoma (3rd 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. On a procedural note, this discussion was difficult to understand, mostly because of this edit. The best way to correct an error like that is to strike out the incorrect wording and add the correct version, so you end up with something like satisfies doesn't satisfy. As it is, we have comments in the discussion referring to text which no longer exists, which is kind of confusing to the reader (i.e. me).

The one person arguing to keep was (in part) basing their opinion on the erroneous text. It's unclear if they saw the correction and chose not to respond to it, or not. In any case, even if I assume the rest of their comment still holds, that's not enough to overcome the weight of all the other delete opinions. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sardha Wijesoma

Sardha Wijesoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject doesn't satisfy the criteria under

• Keep. Wait a tic, the subject meets the criteria at
  WP:PROF? If that's the case, this is an obvious keep. But aside from that, the subject has hundreds of citations, and has authored works that garnered hundreds more. At first glance, this seems like a clear keep. Note also that having had an AFD closed as no consensus is not itself a criteria for deletion, especially since the AfD was closed after a month and multiple relists, at which point there were two keep !votes and 0 deletes apart from your own (since you nominated the article at both previous AFDs). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. A GS h-index of 19 in a very highly cited field may be WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. A couple of moderately well-cited papers, but not enough to convince me of
  WP:REDFLAG of low-quality research, so I'd want to see particularly clear evidence of impact, which does not seem to exist in this case.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete instead at best it seems because the Department Chair of the major Sri Lankan university would seem enough, but aside from that, still questionable for other aspects. Nothing else to suggest of course that there will ever be a better article. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Neutral (see below) I do not follow the nom. The nom states that the article subject does meet
  WP:PROF, followed by the contradiction 'lacks . . establishing notability' so why did they nominate ? Until the nom is not self contradictory SNOW keep. Aoziwe (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment @Aoziwe: my error I meant to say the subject doesn't satisfy WP:PROF. The GS h-index is very low. Given the subject is deceased there is not likely to be any increase in the citation rate.Dan arndt (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dan arndt: - changing my opinion to neutral. Aoziwe (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.