Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udayanga Weeratunga

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. This discussion has been open for over a month with no clear outcome or agreement on whether the sources get this person over WP:GNG. Some sources have been presented by User:Vanamonde which may be helpful in improving the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Udayanga Weeratunga

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT, simply being a former ambassador for a country does not confer automatic notability. Also just because he is the first cousin of a former president does not make him notable - see WP:NOTINHERITED. Dan arndt (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe an ambassadorial position makes him pass WP:POLITICIAN. I believe any ambassador is notable, and I am not aware of any AfD deleting their bio. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are definitely not inherently notable, quite a few have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus as per WP:DIPLOMAT any individual (including any diplomat) needs to meet the criteria under WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO and not just be solely reliant on the fact that they were a diplomat (in this case an ambassador). After going through the article there is little there that supports him being considered as notable. Dan arndt (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:DIPLOMAT and it is an essay, not a policy. In my opinion ambassadors pass WP:POLITICIAN and should be auto-notable by the virtue of their position. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

again you are arguing inherent notability. in fact there was a discussion to give ambassadors inherent notability which gained no consensus. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. no inherent notability in being ambassador. Coverage merely confirms he held the role. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If being ambassador to Russia and notoriety about illegally selling arms in Ukraine isn't notable enough, a quick Google search shows that he passes WP:GNG.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an accusation of Arms selling only. Please show us the outcome of actual sources from your "quick google search"? LibStar (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly 30,000 results on Google.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GOOGLEHITS. number of hits does not mean automatically notable. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ambassador passes GNG, or it should. We can change the notability rules if that's unclear. Ambassadors exert a huge impact on bilateral relations and their work becomes history.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inherent notability of ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors exert a huge impact on bilateral relations and their work becomes history . Many in fact do very little. do you have actual evidence that Udayanga Weeratunga exerted a huge impact on bilateral relations. I'll happily change my !vote to keep if you do. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the subject of the article appears to be currently under investigation in his home country for fraud relating to purchase of MiG fighters:

A warrant is out to arrest Weeratunga on charges of financial fraud, alleged to have taken place when seven MiG-27 ground attack aircraft were procured for the Sri Lanka Air Force (SLFA). The FCID launched investigation on Weeratunga following a complaint lodged by defence columnist and political writer Iqbal Athas on the financial irregularities that had taken place.

Whether this falls under WP:NOTNEWS or makes him notable, I'm not sure. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ambassador of any country to Russia is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

here we go again. Maybe you can actually look for sources which you never do in ambassador AfDs . There is no inherent notability of being ambassador to Russia. Several have been deleted including where you have previously !voted.

LibStar (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The unsupported keep comments based on inherent notability of ambassadors have been disputed by other editors... and past Afds have been showcased to support their oppose/delete assertion... The Afd is therefore re-listed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 03:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG, per WP:POLITICIAN. Simply because the statements of inherited notability is disputed by deletionists in this case does not mean they are correct. also per fraud relating to purchase of MiG fighters, just as an example of this persons notabilty beyond "just another diplomat".BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. has held no political office. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this discussion relisted again. It is clearly a No consensus result, or leaning towards keep per rationales for Delete such as Non-notable individual., utterly pointless.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being an ambassador is not default grounds for notability and we lack adequate sources otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per the source I listed above, the MiG scandal is not sufficient for encyclopedia notability at this time. WP:TOOSOON possibly applies; the subject is not yet notable, per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is notable and holds office. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. None of the positions held confer automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly not convincingly notable as a politician and honestly nothing else otherwise, nothing to suggest what would need to actually happen for a confident fixing and keep. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While the consensus, based on many past deletion debates, is that diplomats do not normally pass our specific standards, in this case an ambassador to a world power would probably be notable. I'd agree to "userfication" until better sources were found. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote contains zero demonstration of actual sources to establish WP:BIO is met, instead trying to argue inherently "probably notable". Nice try but seriously not an argument for keep. LibStar (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this just narrowly passes both WP:NPOL and WP:CRIME, and his corruption case seems to have generated substantial press coverage. FalconK (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

he was never a politician. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and several more available via a search for news sources. Vanamonde (talk) 08:07, 5 October 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.