Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patiphat Chalardchaleam


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Recent precedent, which I am bound to apply, is that sports notability guidelines no longer provide evidence of notability where WP:GNG is met. Arguments on the basis of WP:NBAD as such must be given reduced weight, and the two WP:JVs either side of the relist must be given very little weight. After almost a month on AFD a relist is also not appropriate.

As with all my deletion decisions, I have considered this carefully before closing and will not reconsider the decision based on discussions on my talk page. If you wish to challenge this decision please proceed directly to WP:DRV; I waive all requirements to consult or discuss with me prior to doing so. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Patiphat Chalardchaleam

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

PROD objected, reason was there were some achievements. However the achievements does not even pass NBAD; fails GNG and BASIC too. No coverage about him found. Timothytyy (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton,  and Thailand. Timothytyy (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep medalist at Sudirman Cup, the topmost grade 1 bwf level mixed team tournament, equivalent with individual world championships. zoglophie 04:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't agree a player which did not a play a single match in the Sudirman Cup would guarantee notability. The subject only has trivial mentions in all sources, so SIGCOV still not seen. I also don't agree that a participant of a team Grade 1 championship would have notability, which is based on sources, according to WP:ROUTINE and SIGCOV. Except you can find a source which provides significant coverage for the subject. Being an individual world champion is just so different from being one of the enormous squad of a non-finalist team. Timothytyy (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep his achievement higher than NBAD. BWF World Tour is a Grade 2 of badminton tournaments, while Sudirman Cup is a Grade 1 of badminton tournament. Stvbastian (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment from nominator @ZoglophieStvbastian I suggest you two read WP:N carefully. SNG does not supercede GNG, i.e. articles that pass NBAD/players with achievements does not guarentee itself an article. The subject has absolutely zero coverage, so I don't understand why a SIGCOV failing article deserve a strong keep. Timothytyy (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * trivial mention in some secondary sources, primary sources, can also be used to "support" notability. We can extract the content from multiple secondary sources as evidence of notability. Stvbastian (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Stvbastian According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources can NOT support notability. According to WP:SIGCOV, only sources that provides coverage about the subject directly and in detail can contribute to notability. Quote from SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." It does not need to be the main topic of the source material, but it cannot be a trivial mention. Timothytyy (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pass GNG #3. Stvbastian (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is only one of the five criteria of the definition of GNG "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", I don't understand why you omitted all the other criteria. Do you mean that a reliable source published independently providing few or no coverage of the subject contributes to notability? Timothytyy (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup.. we can collect multiple secondary sources that mentioned about that person as evidence of notability. As long as the sources are reliable and if the person we consider notable in badminton per their achievements and ranking, we can create a standing alone article about that person. Stvbastian (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * GNG says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Spiderone is right. Any guidelines to prove your statement, ? Or did you just make it up out of nowhere? Timothytyy (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (1, 2, 3) those articles sufficient to satisfied GNG. Stvbastian (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: No one has commented since the first relisting, trying one more time. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Florentyna (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Strong Keep per above. CastJared (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your stance in terms of SIGCOV? Timothytyy (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This needed more notability. CastJared (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Also I notice that you voted a lot of "strong keep/delete per above"s in AFDs that met the previous consensus, so I doubt if those were your own judgements and if you read the articles carefully yourself. Timothytyy (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and more importantly WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, which gives us no discretion to keep when no significant coverage can be found. BilledMammal (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2023 (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.