Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shashikala Kumarasinghe

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shashikala Kumarasinghe

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

Non-notable athlete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not familiar with archery. A quick search of yielded this ^{talk) 13:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]}

References

^ http://www.sundaytimes.lk/100110/Sports/spt17.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.sundaytimes.lk/100110/Sports/spt17.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Delete Well the individual did not compete in the olympics, so there is no sign of notability. Also, I have to say it is high time we reconsider automatic pass for all olympians, especially in the early days of the modern olympics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pretty complicated, but here goes: Anyone that competes at the Olympics is notable. Anyone from a world or continental/pan-national event of good repute in any of the sports that people have put on NSPORT is notable. Archery is absent from the NSPORT list, probably because there aren’t enough people interested in archery on wikipedia. I my opinion based on the spirit of NSPORT, anyone who competes in the
WP:GNG. Clearly worth keeping, and I note we are not helping the readers by deleting this kind of biography, its not even vaguely promotional, it is totally the type of article which an encyclopedia should have. So that’s 3 good reasons to keep. Dysklyver 15:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep notable per the explanation above. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also agree with this explanation of the subject's notability
talk) 19:57, 5 November 2017 (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.

13:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

reply