Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chawin Likitcharoenpong

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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chawin Likitcharoenpong[edit]

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

Unremarkable person; prod and speedy declined. —S Marshall T/C 17:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and BIO and nothing convincing our basic policies based on search results. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to pass notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received plenty of coverage in the Thai press, satisfying the GNG. E.g., Thai Rath[1], Kom Chad Luek[2], Nation TV [3], Siam Dara [4] and Dara Daily[5]. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. This is hard for me because I don't speak Thai. I must say that the general look and feel of those sites doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that they get the kind of careful editorial supervision and scrupulous fact-checking we'd normally look for in the BLP of a teenager. But Thai sources may look different from English ones (and indeed why would they look the same?) What I'm really looking for is your assurance that these are the Thai equivalents of The Times and The Guardian, rather than the Thai equivalents of Hello Magazine and the Daily Mail.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't honestly make that assurance. Though Thai Rath is the country's top-circulating daily (and Kom Chad Luek is similarly positioned), the quality of their reporting isn't that highly regarded, and entertainment journalism in Thailand generally doesn't hold itself to high standards anyway (though they're not quite near Western tabloids' level of trashiness). I couldn't find anything in the Bangkok Post or The Nation, so I understand your position. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul_012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 1 March 2017 (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.