- Suphot Dhirakaosal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
There does not appear to be a "no consensus". the sole keep !vote argues on the basis of inherent notability and WP:MUSTBESOURCES, without actually showing sources. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- wouldn't it be simpler to wait a month or two and then re-nominate it? If it gets changed to no consensus, all the difference is that you wouldn't have to wait. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete- Prior to the relists, the nominator had pointed out that the available sources were thin trivial mentions, and the other delete voter had correctly pointed out that holding an important post does not automatically confer inherent notability. The keep side simply presumed that sourcing existed, despite someone else already having looked and finding nothing. The debate could and should have been closed as delete at that point. A third delete opinion, after the relists, backing the first two simply solidified the consensus that was already there, and I simply don't see any way of manufacturing a "no consensus" close here. Reyk YO! 02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete or relist. Turns out I should have contributed. I didn't (after the comment after it was relisted) because I thought three deletion opinions and a (rebutted) "he seems to be [...] important" wouldn't be closed as anything other than delete. The single keep vote offered no policy-based reason and while the deletion opinions weren't strong, policy-based ones, the nomination was fairly comprehensive. The closer viewed the keep opinion to be a "substantive argument". While I disagree, it does explain his rationale but I think it's probably just a tad over-cautious. That said, a no-consensus result does not preclude immediate renomination/relisting and that should probably happen in this instance if the result isn't overturned. Stalwart111 04:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete as ably explained above. Neutralitytalk 05:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete a poor close from an experienced editor who should have known better. Debate leads to delete whether going by vote counts OR by strength of arguments. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Nothing wrong with the close, given the weak arguments. Inherent notability is a rebuttable presumption, but I really don't find the above descriptions of the nomination statement at all accurate: it says "I can't find anything", but that's not really a compelling statement in the case of a dignitary from a non-English speaking country with no particularly strong ties to any other English speaking country. Jclemens (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you'll find the nominator searched in Thai sources as well, and also came up empty-handed. Reyk YO! 02:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The onus is on keep !voters to demonstrate existence of sources when lacking in an article. the keep !voter did not do that. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no, per WP:BEFORE, the onus is on the nominator to demonstrate that sources were not found after a reasonable search. Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop presenting WP:BEFORE as though it is mandatory, when you know full well that it is not. And please stop pretending the nominator hasn't searched for sources when the AFD discussion clearly documents that he has. It's impossible to prove a negative, so all we can ask of nominators is that they have a decent go at finding sources, which LibStar did. He is, in fact, the only commenter in that AfD who can show that he did a basic search, and it came up empty. The burden of proof lies with those claiming sources exist. Reyk YO! 22:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (replying to Jclemens via edit conflict) The afd nominator says right in his nomination that "all I could find is 1 line mentions confirming he is an ambassador", and later links to his searches in Thai as well. What more do you want? Are you just assuming that because he didn't exhaustively list everywhere he looked and every unusably-inadequate source he found, that he didn't really look hard enough? I read this afd essentially as "LibStar: I looked for sources and couldn't find any. Ambassadors don't get a free pass. Pburka: I didn't look, but there must be some because he's an ambassador."
I'm not trying to be combative here; I'm genuinely confused. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Whether ambassadors to major powers are intrinsically notable is a disputed point. The articlecertainly needs further work and a serious attempt at sourcing, but it is unreasonable to conclude there aren o sources from the discussion at the AfD. I think had I been closing it I would I would have relisted. DGG ( talk ) 15:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "it is unreasonable to conclude there are no sources from the discussion at the AfD." do you really mean that? the onus is on keep !voters to demonstrate existence of sources when lacking in an article. your comment here is a not so subtle keep !vote in itself. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse A recent RfC about the automatic notability of diplomats closed as no consensus, so I don't consider so surprising that an AFD about a high profile diplomat closed as no consensus. I suggest to wait three months and start a new AfD. Cavarrone 19:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- sure the recent RfC showed no consensus, but that is irrelevant to how this AfD was closed. We are only commenting here on the procedural nature of the close. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Russia–Thailand relations. Remind deletion discussion participants that wikipedia-notability requirements do not mandate deletion per se. Every !vote considered only the WP-N question of a standalone article and did not address whether the little bit of information could be organized to within another article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He seems to have had a relatively distinguished career as an ambassador and I don't doubt he's a very accomplished gentleman. But, are we really going to allow a biography of a living person with this level of sourcing? Seriously?
I put it to you all that notability is not a consideration in this case. There's simply insufficient material available to form the basis of a Wikipedia article. We have his name, the fact that he's the Thai ambassador to Russia, the fact that he was previously the Thai ambassador to Yangon, his telephone number and email address, and according to the Bangkok Post of 1 September 2005, he announced a feasibility study concerning an energy sharing agreement between Thailand and Burma that would involve the construction of five dams. Although I have no objection to a merge, I think that because we routinely deny people the chance to have their own Wikipedia article on the basis of pathetically small levels of sourcing, it would be rather two-faced to allow an article in this case.—S Marshall T/C 22:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen numerous stubs for athletes and footballers based on less content. We have no policy requiring some minimum level of content for an article. Other reference works routinely have brief entries for minor topics and this is fine - "enough is as good as a feast". Warden (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse There was no consensus to delete. Notability is a loose guideline not a hard policy and so it was quite reasonable to respect the Keep !voter's position per WP:DGFA. That !voter provided good detailed evidence which was more impressive than the contributions of the other !voters. Warden (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the sort of afd and afd close that drives me nuts. I think it's clear there was a consensus to delete - and it would be even if the afd hadn't been relisted twice before garnering the final delete !vote - and DRV is not AFD part 2, so I'd normally be saying overturn, delete, and troutslap. I think it's also clear that that consensus was wrong, since the current entire contents of this stub would not be out of place in Russia-Thailand relations, and a redirect is at least defensible. I wish Dusti or Czar had offered an opinion instead of the kneejerk relist, or Metropolitan90 had instead of supervoting (or at least written a closing statement, even a couple words' worth). Overturn and relist, and I expect it'll get either redirected or deleted-and-merged. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete If anm RFC has failed to find consensus on inherent notability then the default state needs to be applied, which is that BLPs require substantial sourcing and not just single lines here and there. On that basis, any other outcome apart from delete is perverse as the closing admin has to discard a preponderance of solid policy based opinions around N/GNG to avoid deletion. The alternative votes most evidently do not have the same weight of policy behind them. Spartaz Humbug! 00:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article as it stands is pretty poor. But a news archive search shows a lot of coverage, though much behind paywalls. [1] and [2] are solely from his time in the US in a more minor position than he has now. Neither is likely to be in depth, but we would expect to see a lot more in Thai's press and from Russia. Endorse someone with his record has coverage, we just need to find it. I'm not going to claim every full ambassador is notable, but this guy is. As far as the AfD goes, the keep !vote was reasonable and no sign anyone other than Libstar tried to find sources. Delete would have been a reasonable outcome, but NC was too. Hobit (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified the Thai wikiproject in the hopes they could find sources. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I read Pburka's position in the AfD, but then re-read it again. If it said something like, "There is a likelihood of reliable source material because ..." and then Pburka posted what he posted in the discussion, I think it would have been strong enough for a no-consensus close. However, Pburka post, "Given the frequent coverage in English sources on Google", which does not counter LibStar's "1 line mentions" comment. LibStar rebutted Pburka's comment "more and deeper sources in Thai, Burmese and Russian" with apparent actual search results. Without more strength to Pburka's keep position, a non-consensus close could only be based on all around weak arguments plus twice relisting with no meaningful contribution to the discussion. I may have found new information: pipl.com gives a number of hits. Also, accessmylibrary.com. In 2008, Moscow summoned Dhirakaosal to Russia to deal with the arrest in Thailand of Russian citizen Viktor Bout, which an events of particular diplomatic importance. I didn't find much write up on it, but it probably is out there to satisfy WP:DIPLOMAT. A no consensus close means the article can now be relisted at AfD. The nominator LibStar had the strongest argument, but it was not that strong and it was in the nomination. The other arguments were weak and there was the double relisting. On balance, the close seemed to be a judgment call by Metropolitan90. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on sources: After some twenty minutes looking at Thai-language sources on Google (for the third time—I didn't comment during the AfD since there didn't seem to be anything worth mentioning), 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. 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. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
