Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodanduwa Weerasooriya's

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dodanduwa Weerasooriya's

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article's severely undereferenced, most of the references here are blogs, ancestry sites, and other non-reliable sources. Several individuals who apparently don't warrant their own articles are listed as notable. This seems more like puff than a wikipedia piece. JamesG5 (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page creator responded to this in my user page & his own talk page and admitted to a WP:COI issue here, as well as a likely WP:promo concern. IMO this bolsters my concerns. JamesG5 (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Firstly I agree that there is definitely a conflict of interest issue here, in that ShArk50008 has clearly created the article to promote his family. Secondly the other Sri Lankan family articles that he is referring to are predominantly families which have political dynasties across multiple generations such as the Bandaranaike family, Rajapaksa family, Senanayake family, and Wijewardene family. The same doesn't appear to apply to the Weerasooriya family as far as I can see - which only has three notable members, which whilst related are fairly separate members of the same family tree - hardly a prominent notable family. I am erring towards delete but intend to do so more research before reaching any particular conclusion. Dan arndt (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@JamesG5: @Dan arndt:

Comment - It seems ironic to me, as a Sri Lankan, that the very families you refer to, all of these so called dynasties, are known for their exploitation of my country. Starting with the Bandaranaike family who brought in the Sinhala Only Act, which resulted in the 30 year Civil War, and a division which exists even today among communities. In Comparison, the Weerasooriya's of Dodanduwa are not only known well in the country, as a dynasty that has given the country the best of its Clansman, but also contributed tremendously to the development and well being of the country. They have not robbed a cent from Sri Lanka, but rather given back. In comparison to the families you have stated, Weerasooriya's definitely score higher in terms of integrity above all, hence I believe as a family that has been in existence, prominently since the Dutch Era in the South of Sri Lanka, with verified commitment to the country's well being, not only deserve to be on wikipedia, but also deserve to be recognised. FYI I will be updating it with everyone who have noteworthy achievements. They have a lot of people in the family, some of whom do not carry the surname (but are connected on their maternal side), they have contributed tremendously to the country. ShArk50008 (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a list of people with articles in Wikipedia. Could be a disambiguation page rather than an article. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There may be individuals in this family who have contributed to the wealth and well-being of Sri Lanka. I won't debate that. It appears they may already have an article. But being an IT specialist, IT professional, a general practitioner (the others included) in Florida or practicing law in Sri Lanka does not rise to the level of significant contributions worthy to stand notable on their own. I know in some countries notability may be decided by blood relation to other notable persons. That is not the case with Wikipedia and especially not on Wiki:EN as notability is not automatically inherited. This reads like a paid advertisement for the family and is serious POV pushing. Add to that the creator admits to having a COI and refuses to disclose this and it is significant grounds for deletion and the creator may need to be topic banned. I would take the same stance on any family list created as this one has been. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is it that Non-Sri Lankan's are deciding this? All of you appear to be from Western Nations. According to your definition of notability, more than half the existing articles done by South Asians should be deleted. I presume all of you being First World Country citizens, enjoy that privilege. I wonder how many of you have stepped foot in Sri Lanka, or can read the native language. Why aren't Sri Lankan wikipedia editors deciding on this? Why am I to be topic banned? I've done several other articles before with no issue whatsoever. Unfortunately very few people in Sri Lanka contribute to wikipedia, unlike you people, so most Sri Lankans have to do it on behalf of other organisations/people, it's not the same system in America, Canada, Australia, or Europe, we don't as many significant contributors as you do, a lot of our Local history is yet to be added, but when we do, we get some Westerner telling us we can't. Stop applying your subjecting western first world POV on this. There is no conflict of interest, I earlier put my initial posts/replies on the wrong page because I was not so familiar with the talk page, which James took the wrong way. I don't mind people considering it for deletion, as long as its done by Sri Lankan editors, not editors from White Western First World Countries, which is very unreasonable in any context. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShArk50008 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @ShArk50008:, I am a Sri Lankan Wikipedia editor and am very conversant in the country's history so I take offence at your comments. From now on you should stop attacking anyone who has a conflicting point of view to your own and start addressing the issues that have been identified. Dan arndt (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Dan arndt: Apologies for that, thought you were an Australian, I was not attacking anybody, just making a firm reply, do not misunderstand. Earlier I was wondering why some other Canadian and American editors had a say in Sri Lankan articles. If you want to delete this tbh I don't really mind, just did this as a good will gesture, I don't lose anything from this, this kind of Sri Lankan history is very poorly recorded online. Also just curious, who edits articles like this - Chamara Sampath Dassanayake?. Again do not take it the wrong way, I'm fairly new to this. Cheers.

ShArk50008: You do realize that this is the English Wiki, right? I mean, you don't have to only speak English or come from a predominantly English speaking country to edit or create articles here but this wiki has rules for what should and should not be included on its platform. Wiki's from other languages have their own. I have never attacked someone because of their nationality, race, creed or gender/orientation. And don't say you weren't attacking "editors from White Western First World Countries." You totally were attacking. First, I'm not white, but even if I was, how does that preclude me from applying this encyclopedia's guidelines and policies for inclusion to ANY article? Second, you don't know my situation or the situation of anyone else who edits here, except that they are able and well enough to have a means to edit online. This is not an attack on Sri Lankan history. This is an AfD to decide the notability of this article and its inclusion in this encyclopedia. Personally, I am fine with it being included. But, according to guidelines and policies it most likely shouldn't be included. That's why I voted to delete. If you want you can try to get the rules changed. I'd encourage it and probably support you. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 13:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, after giving careful consideration to the matter I have to conclude that it fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY. In that all it consists of is a couple of separate members of the same family tree and a number of non-notable members, which collectively are a non-notable family (based on Wikipedia's guidelines). Dan arndt (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2021 (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.