Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient hairstyles in Thailand

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. With the understanding that this deletion shouldn't be held against a properly-referenced article on traditional Thai hairstyles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient hairstyles in Thailand[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn, no illustration or context, and the language is an impenetrable knot. Does not exist on other Wikis including the Thai one Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Repaired AFD.2001:A61:4E6:C500:3115:48CF:357:2E52 (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a valid topic. There are some references in the article now. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has three refs, all in Thai and all somewhat dodgy. As this is the English WP, I'd say it has no refs. I say delete it and go with the Thai version if some cogent refs can be found. BTW, the word "ancient" does not mean 19th century, or 18th, or 17th, or even 16th, but long before that. Change the title or find refs that support "ancient". Seligne (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep! Since when the language of the references is a problem? EnWiki serves and covers the entire world. I thank those who translated the articles and found references, instead. Cheers! Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it's telling that our Thai colleagues have not seen fit to publish this article in Thai. Most persons come to the English language WP expecting to see English text and sources. Thai refs are fine, especially as the subject matter is Thai. So are German, Italian, et al., but exclusively? I have a hunch you have not looked at the refs. Seligne (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me where on Wiki it states that references cannot be all in a different language. Your reason for delete does not stand. What for do we translate articles from other wikis, than? Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that different language ref are a reason to delete? I did not. But when the cites are in a language or languages that depart from the language of the WP language, it's a red flag. The article sucks, the refs suck; the title sucks. While it may be a worthy topic (I have my doubts), as it stands it is a discredit to WP. Seligne (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in different language is not a reason to delete. I would like to request a Thai reader to check the third reference to be sure it refers to ancient and not simply "traditional" hairstyles. Egaoblai (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. No one has said that different language refs are a reason for deletion. Seligne (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. I find nothing about "Song Co Dong", "Ma Had Thai", or "Dok Kra Tum" except on Wikipedia mirrors. Unless someone can provide the Thai transliteration and a credible source that these terms are in use, all of the content should be deleted. The topic of Traditional hairstyles in Thailand is probably notable; I see enough mentions in scholarly works about that. The references are very, very low-quality; the Kapook one is likely sourced to Wikipedia and the Phahurat one looks like content-spam to promote an online store. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the image at this link, "Song Co Dong" is the top left image, "Ma Had Thai" is the top right image, and "Dok Kra Tum" is middle right. Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ridiculously slow at finding Thai letters and inputting them but dok kra tum is apparently ดอกกระทุ่ม. This seems to be a dictionary definition - [1] but, while I can transliterate Thai and read a few basic words, I certainly cannot read this. There certainly seem to be a lot of sources with which an article could be constructed... [2] Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was created by a one-time editor, probably as part of an EFL school project. References are indeed poor, and the writing isn't good, but I'm not quite convinced this falls into WP:TNT territory (which seems to be the only valid reason to delete here). At the very least it needs to be renamed, to something probably with traditional or historical rather than ancient as the adjective. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is exceedingly poor, and the article is nearly unintelligible. Perhaps an article could be written on this topic, but we would need to start from scratch. Thai sources are fine as a general matter, but these Thai sources appear to be garbage. Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that all the sources are in Thai is not an issue. There's no requirement for sources to be in English. Likewise, the fact that the writing quality is poor is also not a reason to delete. The problem is that none of the three sources appear to be WP:RS. It's hard to tell for sure since I'm working off the auto-translations, but they looks like blogs and/or websites for hair salons. If somebody can find better sources, I don't see any fundamental reason why this topic couldn't be the basis of an encyclopedia article, but with what we've got, it fails WP:N and maybe even WP:V. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.