Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metha Wanapat


 * 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Metha Wanapat

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:YOURSELF (Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged). Article on Metha Wanapat created by user Metha, with majority of edits by users Metha and Mwanapat Patiwat (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Has potential, I found quite a bit of coverage in 3rd party sources. But this article as it stands is an autobio that sounds grossly promotional, so I think it would be better to delete it without prejudice to further recreation by independent editors. Blodance (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please list the sources you found; I wasn't able to find any. Being promotional is not a reason for deletion, so if sources can be found to establish notability, this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some news on Chinese govermental websites; Note I didn't say the sources are reliable, or it would be a weak keep :P Blodance (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The article appears to fail Notability (people), Verifiability, and Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your above link is broken; replace the underscore with a space and results appear. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.  -- Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep; Conflict of interest concerns are not generally reason for deletion. The subject appears to satisfy Notability (academics) criterion #2 by having received the Council of the University Faculty Senates of Thailand's Outstanding Lecturer Award in 2009. Also the author of multiple international publications. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if an award for outstanding lecturing fulfills criteria #2 ("pioneering or developing a significant new concept, technique or idea, making a significant discovery or solving a major problem in their academic discipline."). Excellence in lecturing (teaching) and prioneering research are usually rewarded seperately in the academic world.  In addition, having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy the criteria for academic notability. Patiwat (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're looking at the wrong paragraph. Your quote describes criterion #1. The award (อาจารย์ดีเด่นแห่งชาติ ปอมท.) is a major national award (although maybe not as prestigious as some others, so that is left to debate). I understand you're proposing lack of notability as reason for deletion as well, then? --Paul_012 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, Cunard was proposing lack of notability as reason for deletion (along with several other rationale). And you responded to him.  And I responded to you.  I acknowledge that I was reading the wrong bullet point for the notability criteria.  But I have no idea whether the award is a highly prestigous national award - please provide a 3rd party source for that (in English, so that other editors to the English-language Wikipedia can take part). Note that even if it can be reliably shown that he is a noteworthy academic, I still consider the article grossly promotional and a clear conflict of interest. Patiwat (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Being an autobiography or written in an overly promotional tone are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. Having said so, I don't think this national award is very important, although I would like to see a source for it (and that could be in any language, not just English: this is the international Wikipedia, not an exclusively English one). More importantly, the Web of Science lists 51 publications that have been cited 312 times (h-index = 9). This is usually not considered enough to meet WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 11:42, 21 January 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.