Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suparatana Bencharongkul

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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suparatana Bencharongkul[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO. One link is dead, another is Facebook, the rest do not meet the criteria needed for significant coverage in reliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are there any sources in Thai? Mccapra (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reference is not an ordinary Facebook post but the one from Forbes Thailand Magazine. I have replaced this with the corresponding article from its webpage. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Past versions of this article have been deleted due to being created by a COI sockpuppet. An admin should check to make sure that this version isn't a copy of the deleted ones. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Meets the WP:GNG. Profiled in Forbes Thailand[1], Thairath[2] and Praew[3]. Should be kept if unaffected by the sockpuppetry issue. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that sources have been found by Paul_012. Mccapra (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the WP:GNG. I think should be kept if unaffected by the sockpuppetry issue. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2019 (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.