Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suparatana Bencharongkul (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Suparatana Bencharongkul}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suparatana_Bencharongkul_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Suparatana Bencharongkul}})

Poorly sourced blp who's claim to fame is being the child of someone notable. The sources are lackluster (and some are misrepresented as being independent) and unreliable. Searching in both Thai and English for sources reveals teh same thing, a lack of notability. Praxidicae (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete probably undisclosed paid-for-spam. It's surprising that the article was started by user {{noping|Doug McMaster}} (a sock of {{noping|Timlaieditor}}) at Draft:Suparatana Bench just two months before this version was created. GSS ^💬 14:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete — Per {{u|GSS}}, also this is a non notable individual who doesn’t satisfy our general notability criteria. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - As per nom. Does not seem notable, and questionable sources. Infogapp1 (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I have gone through all the sources used and they appear to me quite independent and verifiable. Just because we are not familiar with Thai does not mean articles are lack of notability. I believe this article deserves to be worked on further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by มีความสุข (talk • contribs) User has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I see some non-trivial coverage which shows that she is respected in her field. [https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/43840/20200526/suparatana-bencharongkul-leading-agriculture-changes-through-social-media.htm Nature World News], [https://www.laweekly.com/suparatana-bencharongkul/ LA Weekly] (Sponsored), [https://ventsmagazine.com/2020/02/24/suparatana-bencharongkul-inspiring-the-next-generation-of-thailands-farmers-and-agriculturists/ Vents Magazine], and [https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/25961/20200605/suparatana-bencharongkul-with-an-aim-to-improve-farmers-lives.htm Science Times]. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

::Both vents and LA weekly are pay for play aka black hat SEO. Also did you bother to look at [https://www.sciencetimes.com/about-us this sources] editorial team? Praxidicae (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• KEEP Science times seems legitimate, as does Nature World News. If someone could search in her native language, perhaps they'd get more results. Dream Focus 23:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

::You mean the same website [https://www.peopleperhour.com/hourlie/guest-post-on-sciencetimes-sciencetimes-com-da68/417270 that doesn't identify their guest posts] or "staff" reporters? Praxidicae (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

:::International Business Times [https://www.ibtimes.sg/suparatana-bencharongkul-pioneering-agriculturalrevolution-thailand-45703] is used in over a thousand Wikipedia articles. https://www.universityherald.com/articles/77310/20200605/suparatana-bencharongkul-spearheading-an-agricultural-revolution-in-thailand.htm also seems like a reliable source. Dream Focus 00:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

:::So are Forbes and TOI - yet at least one of these doesn't identify contributor posts and paid for posts, just like ibtimes. Oh and feel free to control+f WP:RSP for Ibt because it's not reliable. Also the idea that universityherald is somehow a reliable, authoritative source is laughable. 😂 Praxidicae (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

::::What's wrong with the Forbes Thailand article and other reliable sources that four people in the previous AFD said proved it passed the general notability guidelines? Dream Focus 01:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• KEEP Meets WP:GNG. And for reasons cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suparatana Bencharongkul 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per sources cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suparatana Bencharongkul --Lerdsuwa (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Dream Focus has asked that I explain the nature of the Thai sources mentioned in the previous AfD. The Forbes Thailand article[https://forbesthailand.com/cover-new-issue/%e0%b8%99%e0%b8%b4%e0%b8%95%e0%b8%a2%e0%b8%aa%e0%b8%b2%e0%b8%a3-forbes-thailand-%e0%b8%89%e0%b8%9a%e0%b8%b1%e0%b8%9a%e0%b8%a1%e0%b8%b5%e0%b8%99%e0%b8%b2%e0%b8%84%e0%b8%a1-2563-%e0%b8%aa.html] is a profile piece from the magazine's March 2019 issue, written by staff writer and former business editor Ekarat Sathutham. The Thairath article[https://www.thairath.co.th/lifestyle/woman/591047] is a profile column from the newspaper's 16 March 2019 print issue. Thairath is Thailand's most widely circulated newspaper; articles from the print edition are more selective than online-only articles. The Praew article[https://praew.com/people/16440.html] is a profile piece dated 25 July 2015, though appearance on the magazine's print edition isn't listed. Praew is a long-standing glossy lifestyle magazine. All of these are long-standing publications and can be expected to adhere to journalistic standards. As mentioned in the previous AfD, I would appreciate an admin looking into the deleted versions' history to determine if COI issues exist. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

::Comment: It is a common refrain from some editors, that WP:COI somehow means an article is assumed non-notable and therefore should be deleted. It does not, and undisclosed COI is a covered by (Behavioral guideline) not a policy. I have spent some time adding references to the article. If there has been paid editing or some other COI involved that does not negate the subject's notability. I will continue to make improvements where I can, and I have no conflict of interest. Lightburst (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

:::Agreed, and appreciated. However, this subject has been a long-term target of sockpuppetry, and you'll find an active SPI case through the user pages linked by GSS above. Please be very sceptical of the content and citations added by มีความสุข. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

::::Not the article it was when we started this AFD. See WP:Before. Further, the alleged WP:COI of the article's creator is an irrelevant fallacy; Argumentum ad hominem. The question of notability is independent of this attack. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

:::::7&6=thirteen, the indentation of your response seems to indicate that you were replying to my comment, but I'm not quite sure, what exactly are you responding to? --Paul_012 (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - The article was determined to have met GNG when it was nominated for deletion and kept last year. Notability cannot be lost. Ergo Bencharongkul is notable. Samsmachado (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.