Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalermpol Malakham

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. Per Wikipedia:Foreign sources, non-English reliable sources are acceptable as sources. I believe that consensus is that the article meets the notability standards for inclusion. NW (Talk) 04:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chalermpol Malakham

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

Declined PROD. Non-notable singer; I can find no coverage by anybody (although this may be a language issues). References, even if non-English, are needed to prove the subject's significance. Also potential BLP issue. I'd be willing to withdraw this if sources are found. Mm40 (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Mm40 (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seeing how this can easily be a language issue, I'm quite sad to see this was nominated rather than put in front of a Thai WikiProject or Wikipedians who speak the language. By the way, this is not a BLP issue. BLP issues are about contentious material. This is unreferenced, but in no way disparaging or otherwise problematic to the point it could cause a lawsuit which is what this BLP rule was made for. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I added this to the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions, which is presumably watched/check up on by Thai editors. Also, while I know it is not a BLP issue at the moment, it it's an unreferenced—and probably not widely watched—BLP, which tends to attract disparaging material. I tend to heir on the side of deletion when it comes to borderline unreferenced BLPs. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google the name in Thai and you get 500000 hits (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), so he is far from unnotable, he is only virtually unknown outside Thailand. The article needs references and some more content, but that is no reason to delete it. andy (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of a major published work,[1] in addition to having released multiple records with mainstream labels and easily satisfying WP:MUSIC. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 06:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was in thailand 4 weeks ago and heard of this guy and now telling people about him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdt1 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article as currently written is a clear delete - it does not cite any references or sources. If Paul_012 or Bdt1 care to add them then that could change, absence that - delete or move to user space for more work to be done on it. Codf1977 (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was my understanding that we expand stubs, not delete them. I'm not up to researching this subject right now, but that shouldn't be relevant, because AfD is not a venue to request article improvement. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I Think you missunderstand my point - I was not requesting article improvement - mearly pointing out that the artical does not, as written now, demonstrate notability as there are no references or sources, if you or Bdt1 can find any to add then my view (to delete) could change. Codf1977 (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is based on WP:V. This is the English language version. If I can't read it, I can't consider it verifiable. If verifiable sources become available, then I might consider changing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2010 (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.