Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samanea Bangkok Market


 * 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 speedy delete. Previous AfD was only last month and nothing has changed. Fences &amp;  Windows  23:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Samanea Bangkok Market

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable real estate. Most likely previously deleted by another name a month ago. nearlyevil 665  06:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  nearlyevil  665  06:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.  nearlyevil  665  06:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Shouldn't this be speedy deleted if it is a recreation of the previously deleted article? – robertsky (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: per CSD G4 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samanea Bangkok) CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, may I know the reason for it being speedily deleted? As I've made changes from the previous version and added more information from before. Thanks Kinemas123 (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The changes to the article are rather minimal (the G4 speedy deletion criterion is "sufficiently identical"); the added sources, as far as I can tell, appear to be copies of the same press release, so still don't show that the subject is notable. Whether or not the versions are similar enough to warrant speedy deletion will be decided by an admin, who might speedily delete the article or let this AfD run its course. In case of the latter, I'd say there's still no evidence of notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:G4. The only differences in here between the previously deleted version are the name of the designer, the two named shops, and the 330,000 sqm planned figure.  I wouldn't consider this a significant difference, as the whole of the article is almost identical and the added facts don't create a new, strong claim of notability. Hog Farm Talk 17:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you for the explanation. Does that mean if I add more sources from notable media it will be approved? Kinemas123 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I suggest revisiting this article a couple months down the road and submit via the article creation process. Having it in notable media doesn't mean that it will get a pass, especially if the references are determined to be press releases in disguise. – robertsky (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (Speedy) Delete & Salt I'm not sure why there's a speedy request and AfD running in parallel, but either way this should be deleted and the name salted. This company's paid editing has caused, and keeps causing, a huge amount of deletion work by creating articles on every single market this company operates, moving them around to different names, recreating after deletion, etc., and I think it's finally time to put a stop to it. I've so far not seen one that justifies an article; however, as a compromise, and only to stop this going on any longer, I could support one on the group as a whole, which could then list (in no more than short bullet points) the various venues they operate. But I repeat: none of the venues on their own should have articles, as they're all inherently non-notable ROTM markets. No matter how much the paid editor's paymasters might think otherwise. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , AfD came first, CSD came some time in between my comment and the 2 speedy votes above. – robertsky (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks; didn't look at the timeline carefully enough. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2021 (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.