Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wannawat Ampunsuwan


 * 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__. Courcelles (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Wannawat Ampunsuwan

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

Fails GNG, BASIC and NBAD. No significant coverage found online. Timothytyy (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton,  and Thailand. Timothytyy (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep highest rank 30 in the world, medalist at the Southeast Asian Games and Summer Universiade. These should be enough to keep article. zoglophie 15:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zoglophie Notability is based on coverage, not by achievements. It does not even pass NBAD. No coverage at all online. An article which fails GNG, SNG and SIGCOV at the same time should definitely be deleted. Timothytyy (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * At some point, achievements alone can also be considered. As I said before, someone who was ranked top 30 in the world with plenty of regional medals can't be deleted. zoglophie 04:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by can't be deleted? Notability is based on coverage, not achievements. Please read the notability guidelines and deletion policy if you still don't understand. Timothytyy (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Stvbastian You can check the sources, none of them provide secondary significant coverage about the subject himself, so it still fails GNG. Unless you can find SIGCOV, I don't see any point of keeping this article. Timothytyy (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: The consensus is to Keep this article but no participants have supplied sources providing SIGCOV in response to the nomination statement. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zoglophie. trivial mention in some secondary sources, primary sources, can also be used to "support" notability. We can extract the content from multiple secondary sources and primary sources for establishing notability. Stvbastian (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. Explaining this to you again after already explaining it to you in another AFD. You don't seem to understand GNG. Timothytyy (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You can use primary sources to beef up an article, but you need reliable, neutral sources to create the article. You can hang the primary sources on the main article, but you have to get the base article built first. Oaktree b (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Florentyna (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Florentyna Per which relavant guidelines? Please give adequate explanation in all AFD votes, or else closing admins will not consider your votes. Timothytyy (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete for any sort of sourcing in RS that can be used to meet GNG, there are none given above. I can't find any either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - Subject does not meet the notability criteria set out in the general notability guideline. Claims of achievements are not helpful to this debate as even if true, do not satisfy the criteria for badminton players set out at WP:NBAD. Player needs to have had a podium finish at tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix (until 2017) or the BWF World Tour or Super 100 level (from 2018 onwards) and I see no evidence of this. Even if true, it's only an indicator that significant coverage is likely to exist. Without that coverage, I can't support keeping this article. The !votes for keep in my opinion are "drive-by" - quick "keep this" without actually addressing the concerns raised by the nominator or delete !voters. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - the nominator has confirmed that the relevant guidelines are WP:NBAD, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. There is also WP:SPORTBASIC. This article does not meet any of these 4 guidelines, therefore, there is no reason to keep this article. Keep arguments above are not guideline based. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:35, 5 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.