Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chawadee Nualkhair


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. as there is disagreement over whether the sources found are sufficient for establishing notability. I don't think a third relist would help us arrive at a consensus here so I'm closing this now. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Chawadee Nualkhair

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Appears to be a non-notable individual due to the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sources primarily comprise passing mentions or interviews, which is also consistent with WP:BEFORE. Despite occasional appearances as a guest on TV shows, this alone does not establish notability. Additionally, the author appears to have a COI/UPE, considering their edit history. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 16:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Thailand. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 16:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete:The sources not provide required coverage about the person. Morekar (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Pennsylvania.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not seeing evidence for COI, which Crcolas has explicitly denied. If you believe otherwise, please raise an investigation at WP:COIN. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reviews of this author's work have appeared in Publishers Weekly (link), Foreword (link), The New Zealand Herald (link), Booklist (link), and other places (link 1, 2, and 3). There has also been significant coverage of the author as an expert on street food in places like the New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Bangkok Post, and a large number of other media outlets and TV shows (many of these are already linked in the article's citations). All of this shows the author meets the notability guidelines for creatives listed at WP:Author. --SouthernNights (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, such reviews don't give a free pass to notability no matter where they were published. Additionally, the other sources you mentioned are merely passing mentions and do not constitute the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 20:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * SouthernNights was making an argument under WP:AUTHOR #3, not the GNG. It says, ... Such a person is notable if: ... 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) --Paul_012 (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To satisfy WP:AUTHOR#3, the book must pass WP:NBOOK, which is not the case here. Furthermore, looking at the disclaimer in the Foreword, it indicates that her book was not selected by them for review, but rather she sent her book and requested a review. The disclaimer reads: "Disclosure: This article is not an endorsement, but a review. The publisher of this book provided free copies of the book to have their book reviewed by a professional reviewer..." GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 04:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For authors and other creative professionals, reviews are used along with overall media coverage to establish notability. And the language on the Foreword review doesn't change the fact that it is a review. Numerous publishers provide copies of books for review consideration. That is very different from a paid review or paying the reviewer. Foreword still selected the book for review. And you are absolutely wrong that to meet WP:AUTHOR#3 their books must pass WP:NBOOK. That has never been a notability guideline or requirement for any author or creative professional. SouthernNights (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, with regards to your claim that the media coverage isn't "significant coverage," the basic criteria under notability states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." I believe that is what we have here with all the media coverage of this person as a street food expert. This author has been featured as a street food expert in a large number of media outlets and on some well-known TV shows. When that is combined with the reviews of her books, then notability is established. SouthernNights (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: Also, I'm not sure what you meant by "Current sources primarily comprise passing mentions or interviews, which is also consistent with WP:BEFORE." Did you perhaps mean to point to some other page? --Paul_012 (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * With the term 'current sources,' I am referring to the sources already present in the article. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 04:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But what does WP:BEFORE say about them? That's the art I don't understand. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can't decide what my vote is, but GSS, what's your problem? Don't make this discussion problematic. Someone presented reliable independent sources, but you always say, in many Thai-related AfD discussions, in some way, that these are not reliable, passing them off as mentioned, not independent, and dismissing interview pieces, blah blah... etc, even these coverages are pretty fine. In my view, these sources are okay. Please stay cool and don't resort to WP:IDONTLIKE. Thanks 180.183.224.201 (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources:
 * this source published by a popular magazine is an interview so not independent. this is also an interview
 * this which is primary and written by subject.
 * I stopped here as I went deeper on Google, but no reliable sources were found. Since it fails notability guidelines, delete. Toadette  ( Let's discuss together! ) 07:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep: Multiple book reviews as given above, and this from New Zealand and one from Indonesia, I think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not see any in-depth coverage about her in any reputable newspaper rather than self-authored articles, however there are some book reviews from reliable sources that may make her notable. Atighot (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2024 (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.