Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamonnawin Inthanuchit: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:41, 9 February 2022

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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamonnawin Inthanuchit

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

I don't think the subject passes WP:PROF based on the information in the article, and the sources given don't look like the kind needed to prove that the subject passes WP:BASIC. I couldn't find any other likely-looking sources online. (Contested PROD.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to GS he is reasonably well cited for someone who only got a PhD five years ago, but the numbers aren't a convincing pass of WP:PROF#C1 in a high-citation field like engineering. Can't find any evidence that the subject passes any other criteria of WP:PROF, or sufficient sources to pass the GNG. – Joe (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slightly borderline, but on balance, agree, does not pass PROF or BASIC. DonFB (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Off to a good start but still WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 11 January 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.

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 *'''Delete'''. Off to a good start but still [[WP:Too soon]]. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 02:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC).
 {{clear}}
-:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>