Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patapol Ngernsrisuk

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. &mdash; J I P | Talk 13:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Patapol Ngernsrisuk
Delete"Athletes who are widely known, widely acclaimed, or highly successful in their sport." Doesn't qualify on this basis. Follow the link to Nathan Robertson on the page for a counter example of someone who does qualify. Marskell 10:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Simply being in the Olympics does not notability make. --NielsenGW 11:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually competing in the Olympics does confer notability. It means on a *national* basis the person has been "highly successful in their sport" (since a country is allowed only 3 entries per event).  Being at the top of your local town isn't good enough.  Being in the top of the world is more than enough.  Being in the top of your country is just enough.  This is just enough. --rob 12:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Olympic athletes. Kappa 18:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep because he was in the Olympics. And he may have some fame in Thailand. -Fang Aili 18:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep solely because of the disruption that would be caused if we deleted this and then had to endure an avalanche of AfD's for all of the hundreds, if not thousands, of other Olympic athletes we have stubs on. Zoe 19:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Re: "the person has been 'highly successful in their sport' (since a country is allowed only 3 entries per event)":  Did the Jamaican bobsled team on which a Disney movie was based really consist of the twelve best bobsledders in the nation, or just a bunch of people who found it interesting; i.e. was there even a selection competition?  There are several thousand athletes every Summer Games, and a few thousand more every Winter Games, most of whom will never gain enough widespread media coverage to merit articles in the English Wikipedia.  Barno 19:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply: You're mistaken to keep looking only at an international basis.  Also, the large athlete count includes many large teams (probably with bench warmers), and I would be happy to say that not every player in a team warrants inclusion.  Your allusions to "English Wikipedia" is something I strongly object to.  The *only* thing English in English Wikipedia is the language *we* the editors use.  Notability requirements for inclusion are wholly unrelated to language.  In fact, we should bend over backwards, to realize that as English speakers, it's harder to judge a non-English person's notability.   --rob 22:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was working from some assertations I'd seen veteran editors make in VfD (now AfD) discussions.  I just went looking through policy pages, and don't see much in the way of "must have notability among speakers/readers of English"; the closest I found is Verifiability.  Since there are no sources linked nor cited, I can't judge their language.  "... defeated in the round of 32" tells me not notable within the field of Olympic athletes.  I have no idea of his fame and significance in Thailand.  If earlier informed voters had given assertions that Ngernsrisuk was the Michael Jordan of Thai badminton, I would have held my vote awaiting verifiable citations.  As is, I'll skip language matters and rely on the basic Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies point: "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?"  No change in vote, but I'm willing to be persuaded if someone provides the verifiable documentation required by WP's fundamental policy.  I agree that editors and AfD voters are often too centered toward the USA or the "western democracies".  Barno 23:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The quote you made is for dead people.  For living people, who are athletes, the standard is "highly successful in their sport".
 * Actually, an easier standard: "Athletes who are widely known, widely acclaimed, or highly successful in their sport". Sam Vimes below has provided an event that Ngernsrisuk didn't-quite-win and a world ranking, with sources.  I don't know how significant the Thailand Open is among the international badminton community or among the Thai general public, and I don't know how noteworthy 26th in the world is among either group.  For comparison, I was recently 41st of 83 in the World Diplomacy Championship, with players from 8 of the 20 or so countries with active Diplomacy hobbies, but I'm not asserting notability for me.  Vote withdrawn; I'll leave it up to people with more cultural context and who care more.  I still don't think that Olympians are automatically notable even if they don't get past the round of 32 teams.  Barno 00:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as Olympic athlete and to counter systemic bias. Punkmorten 21:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - reached the final of the 2003 Thailand Open in addition to his Olympic participation. He and Prapakamol is ranked 26th in the world.  Sam Vimes 21:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep badminton is hard. --best, kevin · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 02:38, September 8, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.