Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supavadee Phangkaew


 * 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 Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Supavadee Phangkaew

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No claim of notability in article. 0 non-wiki ghits; external links in article don't mention this person. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I am currently in the process of adding to this article. Please refrain from simply deleting at this stage. Thanks 84.64.255.190 (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unable to establish claim to nobility. Granted, one must be wary of trans cultural notability/verifiability issues. However, the creator and editors of this article have been requested to provide sourcing and have not done so. Surely, if notability could be established, they would have been able to by now. The links added to don't fit the bill. Dloh  cierekim  15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Some verifiable sources asserting subject meeting notability is what we need. Will happily reconsider my position if can be shown to meet WP:V and WP:N. Cheers, and happy editing!  Dloh  cierekim  03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep and give more time Finding references may be more difficult in this case, since the majority of source material can be expected to be in the Thai language. The creater and other contributors should be given ample time with these difficulties in mind. Thanks and happy editing Demathis (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but I do not totally exlucde the possibility of deletion. Just check the article's history; the user is taking his time to edit the article, so I persuade that we all give him more time to expand, but again with a limit, preferably up to one to two months more. I recommend that we call the creator (check the page history) and notify him of this first. Mr Tan (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment First edit.  Dloh  cierekim  16:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are no reliable sources in the article at this time to verify notability. If the creator manages to produce such and wishes to expand this article, even if this AfD closes as delete, it can be userfied on request at deletion review. After sufficient sourcing is introduced to verify notability, the article could be restored to article space without concern about recreation. (Of course, if it was reintroduced without sufficient sourcing, it would be subject to speedy deletion.) In it's current state, it doesn't qualify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2008 (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.