Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thongvan Fanmuong


 * 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thongvan Fanmuong

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are no reliable sources for this article that establish notability under WP:BIO and WP:GNG — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  21:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You're not looking very hard: the spellings "Thong Van Thanmuong", "Thong Van Phan Moeung" etc bring up plenty of citations. Svejk74 (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Svejk74, the search yield on both spellings is low – "Thong Van Thanmuong" (1 result) and "Thong Van Phan Moeung" (5 results), none of which fall under WP:RS. I have tried other combinations too. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  14:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I am not enthusiastic about the sources available, including the one I just cited in the article, it must be pointed out that the article is about one of the leaders in the losing side of a genocidal war, which targeted libraries and destroyed the written word. Outside their country, how likely is it that the "reliable sources" exist? The small detail I added to me speaks of notability, even as an article about one of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff would be notable.Jacqke (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. As a general clearly meets the criteria of WP:SOLDIER. As a member of the supreme committee, probably also meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I have noted in Articles for deletion/Sau Sovanney, WP:SOLDIER is an "essay" which suggests that the fulfillment of one of its criteria leads to presumption of notability in favour of an individual, however that does not trump the requirements under WP:BIO and WP:GNG. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  14:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an essay that is generally held to be a notability standard for military bios and has almost always been held to be such at AfD. And note that WP:POLITICIAN is not an essay. For this general, given his status, my opinion stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, for your response. I have not been able to determine the exact nature of the "supreme committee" referred in the biographical article. It appears to have been a body constituted to take charge of negotiations for surrender with the Khmer Rouge as the Khmer Republic came close to a collapse. According to Sak Sutsakhan, who served as the chairman of this committee, its members included the following individuals: (1) Lt. Gen. Sak Sutsakhan; (2) Maj. Gen. Thong Van Fanmuong; (3) Rear Admiral Vong Sarendy; (4) Brig. General Ea Chhong; (5) Mr. Long Boret, Prime Minister; (6) Mr. Hang Thun Hak, Vice Prime Minister; (7) Mr. Op Kim Ang, Representative of the Republican Party. If the role of Fanmuong can be shown to be political within this body, then I would withdraw this nomination. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  15:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If he was senior enough to have been a member of a committee set up to negotiate surrender terms for his country then I would have thought he would be considered notable by anyone's standards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. He was a member of the 6-general supreme committee that held power for a few days after the president fled. He meets WP:SOLDIER's presumed notability and given the multiple variants of his name in English and possible sources in non-English I'm going with the presumed notability here. Verifying he was on the supreme comittee is easy -, , , . Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Icewhiz - If this committee held power, that would certainly push him past GNG. Perhaps some more research needs to be done to improve the article, but the bare minimum notability requirements are here. Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - per strong notability arguments made by Jacqke. Also, passes WP:SOLDIER. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * can you further elaborate on how Jackqe's rationale is so strong? Is it in accordance with policy? — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  04:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Thanks very much, Necrothesp and Icewhiz, for your constructive comments on this AFD. I believe that the WP:BIO and WP:GNG requirement of establishing significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject has not yet been met. In which case, even if we assume that the additional criteria under WP:POLITICIAN has been achieved, the subject of the biography is at best a "special case". In such cases, WP:BIO recommends that the article in question be merged into a broader article providing context. I believe that would be the most suitable conclusion in case of this article, as the subject can still find a place in a biographical section alongside the other members of the Supreme Committee of the Khmer Republic. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  05:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would concur that GNG hasn't been established by sources in this AfD - though we do have quite a few short mentions in reputable sources. HOWEVER, in this particular case - a government/military figure active in the 60s-70s (a tricky period, actually, for digitized material - as much of it is still under copyright) with multiple variations on his Latin-form (English/French) name and, one would presume, even more sources in Khmer - I am basing my !vote on the presumption (per SOLDIER and possibly NPOL as well) that additional sources are available just not located in this AfD. Icewhiz (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be extremely unlikely to be able to find high-quality and reliable sources in the Khmer language regarding this individual. While I am unable to determine the correct spelling for Fanmuong in Khmer script (ផានមើង?), I have tried searching for "Thongvan Khmer Republic" (ថុងវ៉ាន សាធារណរដ្ឋខ្មែរ &mdash;, , , ) but even that did not yield relevant results. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  05:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Are Khmer publications from the 60s and 70s (as well as later) generally available online (with public access for google)? I know that for other languages (e.g. Hebrew) - this is often not the case (and for English - google often won't cut it for the period - though Proquest and other subscription based newspaper searches often will). I would assume one of the top-ranking generals would have significant periodic press coverage at the very least. Icewhiz (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * News records in the Khmer language from that period are unlikely to be available as they were largely destroyed during the Democratic Kampuchea regime. Many published books survived as they were taken out of the country before the Khmer Rouge took over.  Some of these books have been archived online.  At the same time, due to a sizeable increase in US foreign and military aid to the country, and the increased presence of US advisors during the Khmer Republic period, a proportional increase in interest in the US media may also be assumed for that period, which should increase the likelihood for significant coverage of prominent individuals from during the period.  In any case, the absence of general records, even for good reasons, does not create preponderance of evidence in favour of the existence of records on a particular individual.  Please also note that I am not advocating for extirpation of records regarding this individual from Wikipedia, but only that their biography may be merged into a broader article (redirect and merge with Supreme Committee of the Khmer Republic once that article is created). In any case, I think this AFD ought to be re-listed so that there is more time to gather evidence and to seek wider community input.  In the meantime, I'm trying out other combinations of his name in Khmer script to see if I can get anything ("ថោងវង្ស ផាន់មួង", "ថោងវ៉ាន់ ផាន់មួង", "ថុងវ៉ាន់ ផាន់មឿង"). —  Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  06:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Had such an article existed - perhaps. However, while Wikipedia is not a RS, I do see that ruwiki is claiming that he was (I would assume for a few days - in the collapse after everyone fled) - the supreme commander of Khmer National Armed Forces in command during the last defense of Phnom Penh. In this particular instance - keeping a stub and allowing it to develop might be a better course of action. Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The ruwiki article does not reference any reliable sources to establish that he did, in fact, serve as the Supreme Commander of FUNK. Although, again, if this can be shown to be definitively true, it would create a very strong presumption in favour of notability in my view. In any case, thanks very much for your time and for engaging me on this. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  06:48, 22 April 2019 (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.