Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child Watch Phuket


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn in light of improvementsLibStar (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Child Watch Phuket

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:ORG. hardly any coverage. . a few gnews hits does not mean notability. LibStar (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. How much news coverage in English would one reasonably expect for a charity operating in Thailand? A general search produces enough hits. Charity is obviously doing important work. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * see WP:GOOGLEHITS. doing "important work" is not a criterion for notability. If there is coverage in Thai then I expect a Thai user to come up with some sources, we cannot automatically assume there is coverage in Thai though. LibStar (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep based on coverage from independent and reliable sources, as noted by Luckett about Phuket. Because Phuket is a popular tourist destination for visitors from around the world, the charitable organization seeks donations from people worldwide.  Mandsford (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needs some developement but its a very noted organization and has a place here in wikipedia.Susanbryce (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * see WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The organization is often featured in newspapers, magazines and on television networks and works in with some overseas charities. Most news in thailand is in Thai, but there is references there, just needs some patience and development for the article.Susanbryce (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * it would be better if your original keep vote said this and refer to actual weblinks. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be even better not to tell people what we think they "should have said" in their initial comments. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * AfDs are about genuine arguments for keeping or deletion, not generic statements or weak arguments. my statement was supposed to encourage Susanbryce to be more detailed in future. LibStar (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep We want more coverage of ref'd articles on organizations in 3rd World places. The fact that this afd is based on original research, ie an extremely rudimentary Google in English search merely confirms that this should be speedily closed as keep. If we have no English refs Thai refs are great, remember we are producing an encyclopedia in English not one about about the English speaking world. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 15:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith please. It's a legitimate nomination, and any suggestion that this is motivated by a bias against non-English speaking nations is unwarranted.  I probably disagree with LibStar more than I agree with him, but he's no less open-minded than you or I.  Thanks.  Mandsford (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm I certainly wasn't implying bad faith on LibStar's part, just poor judgment and I have explained why I think his judgment is wrong, especially the inherent original research involved in googling. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs20:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can read the Thai language, you possess an ability that most English speakers do not. However, that's no reason to criticize a person for limiting his search to languages with which he is familiar.  I confess that I don't even know the Thai alphabet, let alone the language.  If presented with the statement "ცნობილი ადამიანები – მუჰამედ ალი, ჯ.გრიფიტი, რობერტ უორენი" I couldn't begin to pronounce it.  In that you can do more than the "rudimentary Google in English search", I hope that you'll use that knowledge to add sources to the article.  Mandsford (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I cant read Thai; here we are talking about principles; I would never base a decision to afd solely on a google search on google.com; I might for instance do site specific searches for possible sites such as Thailand media in English or other prominent sites covering Thailand in English before afding. LibStar does many afd calls which is fine but in this case I think it was a bad call. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 00:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have nominated this if it had a well sourced article in Thai. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the strong consensus emerging to keep the article even without a good Thai ref your comment seems unreasonable; you should perhaps re-assess how you choose which articles to afd as refs in any language are perfectly acceptable; the fact that only a tiny minority understand something is no different for foreign languages than it is for many scientific concepts; our purpose is to educate and verifiability does not mean every 12 yr old kid has to understand something or it is removed. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs01:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * the original article was barely referenced and my own searches did not find anything. the first keep vote was based on WP:GOOGLEHITS and the 2nd keep vote did not add references. I will close this as keep in good faith but this does not mean articles from non English speaking countries are exempt from being nominated for deletion. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, as above. Snow due in Thailand, soon. Jack Merridew 01:06, 6 April 2010 (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.