Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prapimporn Karnchanda

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: This is an AFD page created to object to the deletion of an article. Such a request should be filed at WP:REFUND or WP:DRV, as the case may be, and therefore the AFD will be speedy deleted per CSD:G6 (cleanup of misfiled request/page clearly created in error). Note that if the link below has gone back to blue, it probably means the AFD has been refiled properly. The underlying article Prapimporn Karnchanda will be undeleted as a contested PROD. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prapimporn Karnchanda


Wrong namespace (among other things); I explained the expired proposed deletion here.  Mini  apolis  20:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * And I’ve already remarked that ’s explanation is subject to critical examination and does not, in my opinion, stand up to it. He writes:

"I deleted it because the proposed deletion had run its seven days with no objection (how on earth did you expect anyone here to know that you were objecting on the Thai Wikipedia?)"

This explanation does not stand the test because nobody required my objections except a Thai user. As for enwiki, made a request for references rather than objections:

"I’m proposing the article ... for deletion because it ... lacks references (i.e. not WP:Notability)."

So did not assert that the article about Prapimporn Karnchanda lacked WP:Notability. simply pointed out that there were no WP:reliable sources. The same can be said of the tag which was reduced to the similar request:

"This article … appears to have no references. ... If no reliable references are found and added within a seven-day grace period, this article may be deleted. ... Please note that adding reliable sources is all that is required to prevent the scheduled deletion of this article."

Hence it follows that adding reliable sources exhausted the problem and was the sole means of overcoming the shortcomings of my article. I found and added a lot of sources within a seven-day period, so that I removed the problem. Prapimporn’s notability was not called in question. Nobody (except a Thai user) asked me to confirm her notability (see dewiki, plwiki etc.). The only thing I had to do was adding references. After my adding them, was to remove the tag which had already become out-of-date. But he removed the article itself instead of the tag! --Janggun Dungan (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Does the article's subject meet WP:NACTOR, or is Janggun Dungan being paid to write about the subject?  Mini  apolis  23:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And the only page considered for discussion here is the one which was incorrectly created in WP namespace. Deletion review of the original page is thataway.  Mini  apolis  23:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

To my mind, it’s who is being paid to take part in Wikipedia. As for me, I would write in my native language (Nǁngǃke) if I was paid. --Janggun Dungan (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Another unfounded personal attack.  Mini  apolis  01:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete- This is not the correct way to do deletion review, and Janggun Dungan needs to stop with the unfounded accusations. Reyk YO! 06:24, 5 January 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.