Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chananya Techajaksemar


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Chananya Techajaksemar

 * – ( View AfD View log )

vanity spam sourced to self published blogs and blackhat SEO. TAXIDICAE💰 19:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets GNG. Which of the sources here are being asserted to be "self published blogs and blackhat SEO", and what is the justification for the claim? --Paul_012 (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you bothered to actually look at the sources? 1 is an interview, 2 is a digital marketing strategy site and also an interview, 3 is published by a contributor and not a journalist. TAXIDICAE💰  20:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * None of that justifies the "self published blogs and blackhat SEO" claim. The Cloud and BrandBuffet are established media websites, the latter being a web magazine focusing on the field of marketing, not a pay-for-coverage trend manipulator. While they do carry PR news, such items are clearly marked as such. The piece in question is a feature article. While the pieces are based on interviews, they are structured such that the significance of the subject is clearly explained in journalistic voice, and as such do contribute to establishing the GNG (the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). TrueID I'd regard as borderline. While their content is contributed, they do employ a central editorial team, so it is not a self-published blogging platform. Other established media sources which have profiled the subject include A Day Bulletin, Sanook, The Standard, and 40+ by Post Today. --Paul_012 (talk)
 * None of these are significant independent coverage. TAXIDICAE💰  20:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To review sources provided by Paul 012
 * Keep per Paul_012. References are established 3rd party media, not a self-published source. trueid is owned by True Corporation, 2nd largest mobile operator in the country. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Most of the coverage demonstrated by Paul_012 appears sufficient to meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Cheer VocalIndia (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Interviews are not the stuff of WP:GNG, besides the article is effectively uncited. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: To reiterate my above argument, while interview content does not help establish third-party coverage per the GNG, the introduction and basic coverage of the subject in such articles, presented in the author's own voice, based on their own research, can. The Cloud article cited in the article says (my translation):"Apart from being the author of Wannakhadi Thai Digest, which retells stories of Thai literature in such a fun and entertaining manner, today, we are confident to say that she is one of Thailand's leading YouTubers... Her channel, Point of View, started 7 years ago, now has over half a million subscribers, each video with considerable view count, many in the hundred thousands, some in the millions... Anyone who has followed her videos, all produced by herself, can feel the depth of her research, digested to create fun and addictive stories out of those many once hated to study... She just won the Popular Vote at the Thailand Best Blog Awards 2018. For me, what's most interesting is how a serious knowledge channel, that doesn't feature funny videos or showbiz news, has been able to attract so many devoted followers." The above-linked Sanook article has the following introduction: "From the Love Destiny craze which has ignited trends of revisiting Thai culture and history, Thai literature is another potential area that could benefit from renewed interest and development of new learning methods. But in an age where young people live mostly online, getting them interested in books is difficult enough, let alone old dusty literature. However, not all hope is lost, because we now have a 'net idol' who's not selling cosmetics or making song covers, but a nerdy net idol who's working to break down the walls of stereotype young people have against Thai literature, with the single goal of getting more people to realise how literature can be fun. She is 'View' Chananya Techajaksemar, creator of the Point of View YouTube channel and author of Wannakhadi Thai Digest, a book that breaks down stories of Thai literature, making them accessible to young people." The 40+ article contains a short biography of her (three paragraphs) in a larger column covering activities by TK Park aimed at getting children interested in literature. The BrandBuffet article delineates the author's views and the interview content less directly, so I'll skip it. The A Day Bulletin article and The Standard programme are mostly interview. The subject has also been the subject of news coverage concerning an online political controversy (Khaosod English), though I think this should be seen as a much minor contribution to her notability (she must be already notable for controversy involving her to make then news). --Paul_012 (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep based on Paul 012's analysis above, which indicates that WP:THREE is met via the Cloud, Sanook and 40+ articles. feminist (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2021 (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.