Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suphot Dhirakaosal (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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suphot Dhirakaosal[edit]

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

At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 September 8, a majority of participants are of the view that the previous AfD should have been closed such as not to allow a standalone article. Because the DRV was much more in depth than the AfD, I'm renominating the article and asking the people who opined in the DRV to make their views known here. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 07:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my previous nomination. fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. being an ambassador does not confer automatic notability. all I could find is 1 line mentions confirming he is an ambassador. Even the Thai coverage I found was one line metnions. Not enough evidence of indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as would have been my contribution had I thought the previous AFD was going to be closed as anything other than delete. Diplomats are not inherently notable and there's not much of anything to substantiate notability here, certainly not the the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources required by GNG. There are passing mentions, photo captions and rumours of appointment or removal to/from various posts but nothing by way of substantive biographical coverage. Stalwart111 10:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a significant mention of Dhirakaosal that I found: [1].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional sourcing: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found a couple more sources: [7] [8].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly plenty of passing mentions but not a lot in the way of significant coverage. A lot of that is commentary/coverage of other issues by him, not coverage of him. They don't talk about his role or his biography, history, etc. Being the consul general or ambassador means he was the go-to-guy for commentary on the relationship between those two countries. Much the same way as the spokesman for any large organisation or government department. That doesn't really make him notable, in my view. We're constantly being asked to judge the notability of journalists and "industry experts" who provide commentary and so are mentioned in news articles constantly. But while they don't need to be the focus of coverage, the coverage still needs to be about them in some way. Instead, we have coverage of other issues where he has provided input. Stalwart111 01:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my previous argument that, as ambassador to Russia, he is one of the most important Thai diplomats and we should presume that significant coverage (such as that found by User:The Devil's Advocate) exists. Coverage may well be in sources which are difficult or impossible to find on-line for English-speaking non-experts. (Note that I'm arguing for presumed notability, not inherent notability.) Pburka (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)i[reply]

being ambassador to Russia is not a criterion for notability. There is no inherent or presumed notability of being ambassador to Russia. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources listed by TDA and [9] (mentioned in the DRV) which is an instance of more personal coverage. Hobit (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (copied from the deletion review): After some twenty minutes looking at Thai-language sources on Google, the only thing close to in-depth that I could find was this somewhat brief interview with his wife by Manager 360 Magazine (a reliable source) in 2004. (This is the one mentioned by Hobit above.) It mentions their marriage in 1977 and his postings in Hanoi, Geneva, Rome, Los Angeles, Kuwait, the UAE and Yangon. It discusses their family life with two children (from her perspective), but that's about it. The rest of Google results are trivial mentions, either news pieces mentioning him doing something in his capacities as consul/ambassador, or in relation to political news / legal cases concerning Thaksin Shinawatra. This doesn't preclude the existence of off-line coverage elsewhere, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT - mentions not significant enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that WP:BIO is met here. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though not all ambassadors are considered notable here, I think a great many will be, including one who is the ambassador of an important country to a world power. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he has had a long and distinguish career, serving in many countries where the primary language is not English which complicates the writing of this bio and the search for sources. I have put a lot of the very basic details into the article. I've only been looking at this briefly, but it seems his time in Myanmar is not surprisingly (being his last role) where his most visible achievements have been. I don't fully grasp the sources, but it seems that his involvement was pivotal in the Chinese-owned hydroelectric power facility in Myanmar that exports power to Thailand - an arrangement that is seen as a Chinese-Thai-Myanmar cooperation that is well-understood to have a development goal of assisting Myanmar. Dams in Burma has a bit of info about this, but not much. Perhaps Paul_012 might be able to explain this better, or correct me where my Google Translate skills are leading me up the garden path? John Vandenberg ^(chat)
Weak Keep, given the sources already provided by The Devil's Advocate. I expect that we'd find a lot more in the Thai or Russian languages, but I don't have either of those. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 17 October 2013 (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.