Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pao Pienlert Boripanyutakit (2nd nomination)

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. Killiondude (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pao Pienlert Boripanyutakit[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Could not find any sources establishing notability, and the source that was added since the last AfD is not a reliable source for notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have changed vote to keep based on Paul_012 logic - no doubt sources in Thai, if he has been finance minister four times. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand that language barrier might prevent the nominator from being able to identify relevant reliable sources in Thai, but has it not occurred to them that an individual who served four terms as Minister of Finance/Economics would surely be covered in reliable sources, most of which are offline, because the peak of his career was three quarters of a century ago? Dismissing a historical individual as non-notable by a lazy Google search and without going into the relevant archives cannot be considered adequate due diligence, especially since it had been pointed out in the previous AfD that they clearly satisfy WP:NPOL. Anyway, here's an article from the Daily News newspaper,[1] and Thammasat University Library's entry for the commemorative volume published by the Ministry of Finance/Economics for his royally sponsored cremation.[2] --Paul_012 (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Paul_012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this requires referencing improvement, but he very clearly and verifiably held a notable government role and it was long enough ago that the best sources for it could hardly be expected to turn up on Google. We do not deprecate offline sourcing to print-only books or newspapers, so the need to dig into those kinds of sources to improve the referencing is not grounds for deletion in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Did the nominator not even bother to read the reasons why the article was kept in the last AfD he started? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:36, 17 February 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.