Deletion of Janitha Hewawasam

Comment: passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIN)

Comment: In addition to CRIN, subject also passes  especially re Sinhalese sources. Article has been improved with THREE reliable sources inline now, plus the NEXIST pointer
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST)

Comment: nominator's rationale for deletion of this article may not be relevant for afd ie. "no secondary source since 2009", so? an article doesn't require "uptodate" sources for the subject to be notable, ditto for "none (sources) in English", although its nice to have english language sources to refer to, again does not preclude a subject from the enwp, as for "Fails ", doen't this mean the subject can't be non-notable due to not being known for just the one event? other editors have been saying keep due to meeting  which is fine, just like to mention at the top of , "conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind ..", also the footnote added to the article is truly bizarre, i suggest it may be appropriate for the talkpage but not for the article page, anyway thanks for an interesting discussion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:CRIN||WP:NSPORTS)

Comment: Nomination is completely irrelevant. Notability is not temporary, and there are foreign language sources. Plus he passes . Let's close this, already - it's clearly erroneous
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC)

Comment: Passes , has multiple sources, and there are likely to be more, though perhaps not many in the English language
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIN)

Comment: or '''merge''' into a suitable list of players by club. A third of this article is statistics bloated grotesquely into a semblance of prose, and the rest is a bizarre footnote that is not about the person at all, but unsuccessfully tries to argue that articles of this kind should be exempt from  and . Hopeless. If this ends up kept, I hope it's at least agreed that the footnote is self-serving mendacious drivel; to my knowledge we haven't had a wikiproject push its propaganda in the mainspace since the Article Rescue Squadron got their AfD canvassing template deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)