Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savitri Goonesekere

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Savitri Goonesekere

Non-notable, non-verifiable. {{prod}} tag was removed in an apparent demonstration of WP:POINT. — Mar. 28, '06 [11:04] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Delete per FON. Proto||type 13:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  Keep, references supplied by Monicasdude supply necessary notability. Providing they're added to the article, of course. Proto||type 15:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure they won't be. — Mar. 28, '06 [16:21] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

  Well, you would be wrong. Now please withdraw this nom. -- JJay 16:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. [1] [2] [3] [4] Exactly why do you think objecting to the deletion of accurate articles on notable subjects, when no reason for deletion is stated, is in the slightest bit disruptive? Not a single thing you said in your comments above is true. Isn't that a WP:POINT violation? Monicasdude 14:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? Because I had planned to speedy it, but reconsidered? — Mar. 28, '06 [14:30] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Speedy keep. No reason given for the prod [5] means no reason need be given to remove prod. AfD nom's reasons have been proven false. Accusation of WP:Point violation is unfounded and itself a violation of WP:AGF. -- JJay 16:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. She has over ten thousand Google hits; under what distorted POV can this conceivably be considered non-notable? RGTraynor 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. She doesn't actually have ten thousand Google hits; I get "about 835", but including quality hits such as the U.N. Add to that the Google Scholar hits linked by Monicasdude and 384 Google Books hits. I fail to see any reason why this should be deleted. u p p l a n d 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - while I think it should be kept, I don't think it's a speedy keep. Freak of Nurture made the nom in good faith, and is not any kind of vandal or troll. Proto||type 09:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • His crack of "I'm pretty sure they won't be" puts any such putative good faith in doubt. What is not in doubt that this is a notable entry and the most cursory of checks would have revealed it. FON should have withdrawn the AfD once all this came out, but better yet should have done the three minutes worth of homework necessary to make an informed judgment. Wikipedia is studded these days with deletionists who seem to be under the impression that there's a Grand Prize for turfing the most articles and/or images; let's not promote that mindset. RGTraynor 18:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• What is particularly disturbing in this case is the WP:Point accusation against the user who removed the misguided Prod. That clearly contravenes WP:AGF and makes this a Speedy Keep. -- JJay 00:55, 1 April 2006 (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.