Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanthida Rakwong

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 Draftify. Consensus is clear that further incubation would be helpful. Star Mississippi 03:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nanthida Rakwong

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Nanthida Rakwong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As raised on the talk page, and despite the author's response there and User:Sj accepting it at AfC, none of the references cited in the article, nor any that I could identify, are third-party sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. The Times video is entirely presented by the subject, the few news pieces that mention her by name are only in passing, and the rest are about the organisation's activities and don't directly concern the subject. While her work may be admirable (depending on one's political views), the WP:GNG does not appear to be met. Paul_012 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC) – 02:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notability is established by multiple third-party sources with significant in-depth coverage. One of the key references mentioned already is an in-depth video interview of the subject by The Times [1], which is one of the UK's (and the world's) oldest and largest newspapers that goes through very strict media and journalistic editing criteria. The videos on The Times youtube channel are about leading figures in UK and world politics, current affairs and entertainment, and the subject, Nanthida Rakwong, has been assigned an entire feature video. It is also evident from watching the video that it is produced, presented and distributed by The Times on their official youtube channel. Another third-party source with in-depth coverage, in the references already, is a feature interview of the subject and a co-worker by The News Lens [2], which also describes the work in detail. Other news sources that name the subject do so with significant weight, including the interview section from Apple Daily, which the source reproduced both in video and in text [3]. As a note of clarification, the subject's work is notable and relevant in the fields of international human rights and justice, not only politics. It is also important to be aware that the major media outlets within Thailand are state- and military-controlled, thus go through heavy censorship when it comes to the topics of human rights and the monarchy. Additional context about this within Wikipedia can be found here Lèse-majesté in Thailand and here Censorship in Thailand. Recently, the body that regulates the Thai media "advised" journalists not to cover anything regarding criticism of the monarchy (incl. the demands to repel the lese majeste laws). All this makes it very hard for even the most notable critics of the monarchy to be more than "mentioned only in passing" in Thai sources. Please consider this as a reason to give more weight to the international references that do go in-depth. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • While The Times is generally a reliable source and it featuring a video of her does indicate some degree of media interest, the video only features her speaking for herself, so it cannot be considered independent of the subject, a requirement of the GNG. The same likely applies for the other sources used in the article, though I don't read Chinese so I can't say for certain regarding sources in the language. Censorship or not, Wikipedia's guidelines depend on the existence of reliable sources, so if it is indeed an issue it might be an unfortunate situation, but making an exception based on such claims wouldn't be in line with Wikipedia policy. In any case, local sources are not a requirement, and international sources would be fine on their own if they report on the subject in an independent manner. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Times videos are produced and edited by The Times. According to GNG Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline, Independent of the subject "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it" - this is clearly not produced by the subject. Moreover, The Times follows the press editors code of practice [4]; report subjects are thoroughly cross-examined by the journalist, as is evident here. The other articles, such as the Chinese ones, have an author or editor named, which also makes them independent of the subject. Wikipedia does have advice for censorship contexts such as Venezuela Wikipedia:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources, where state sources are unreliable, and therefore alternative sources are recommended. Similar considerations could be made for Thailand which is in the same category as Venezuela for press freedom (bad) according to Reporters Without Borders [5] - in particular for content related to the most censored topics such as republicanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaiFactChecker (talk • contribs) 00:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess that's one possible interpretation of the guideline, but I don't think I've seen it regarded as accepted argument at AfD discussions. I'm open to it if others share the position. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The main point here is right from the wording of the guideline itself, i.e. that independent of the subject means "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it", and this is work produced by The Times, not the subject. -- ThaiFactChecker (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is enough detail to make an argument for N. I don't think the [admirability] of the subject's work is relevant, but the relative difficulty of finding national sources in censored contexts is. Perhaps: a notability banner to encourage adding more evidence + detail (e.g.: who were the candidates mentioned? what came of the lawsuits + recent work / studies?), and a more detailed discussion on the talk page over a few months, would be a better place and tempo for this discussion than AfD. – SJ + 17:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not censored context issue. Her fellow (like Arnon Nampa) got high news coverage with over 100k hits [6] and those are quality hits with national newspaper, leading news sites. She is just not notable among her peers. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Arnon Nampa and the subject are not "fellows"/"peers": Arnon Nampa is pro-monarchy and wants to reform it, not abolish it - that is very different from Nanthida Rakwong who calls for abolishing the Thai monarchy and changing it into a republic (sources in article). Reform and abolition are treated differently in Thailand, although since a ruling in November 2021, Thai law was changed to consider reform as treason, too [7]. A more recent warning from Thailand's media regulator was that "the act of reporting in and of itself could be interpreted as an attempt to overthrow the country’s constitutional monarchy." [8]. Thailand's severe media censorship is very well documented both on the respective Wikipedia article and more recent analysis such as Reporters without Borders [9] and Freedom House [10]. In addition to previous points from User Sj and myself, search engine statistics should be avoided according to Wikipedia's invalid criteria for notability Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria and the quality of Thai national news is questionable considering such extreme censorship. To the contrary, The Times itself is one of the top circulating newspapers in the UK and the world, with a monthly reach of almost 16 million [11], and The News Lens a monthly reach of almost 14 million in the Chinese-speaking world [12]. -- ThaiFactChecker (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with User Sj on encouraging to add more detail and seeking more references over a few months rather than rushing straight into AfD. -- ThaiFactChecker (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article reads like a resume. The creator has provided WP:THREE sources above, but I find none of them convincing. She is acting as a spokesperson in the video piece with the Times; perhaps she is doing so on behalf of a notable group but that video does not suggest to me that she is personally notable. The second one is only a trivial mention of her, and the third one does not even mention her last name. The coverage does not meet GNG. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a resume; it would be unusual for a resume to contain criticism and lawsuits against a subject... The Times video piece is about the subject as an individual and her experience. Which part of the video makes you think that she acts as a spokesperson? The second one (The News Lens) covers her work in-depth in more than half of the article. How is that only a trivial mention? As for the the Apple Daily article + video, the subject is mentioned several times and also featured in the video. The content about the subject carries significant weight in the wider content. Although not very relevant, in Thai naming convention, the first name is the most important part, while the surname was introduced only very recently. Please also check the above notes regarding censorship in Thailand. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that current coverage does not suffice. There are arguments for why other parts of the bio might be hard to source, including national political work and being the head of her own firm, but they need independent sources indicating significance, which seem scarce in English. TFC: perhaps I was hasty in accepting; better perhaps to return this to draft status while you work on it. – SJ + 03:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • commeent need more trusted citation (comment by soon-blocked sock)
  • Keep. Restatement with new detail due to relisting. Notability according to GNG is established by reliable sources independent of the subject, including The Times (one of the oldest and largest newspapers in the world that adheres to the press editors code of practice [13] and is included in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). More than half of The News Lens piece is about the subject's work, and Apple Daily covers her significantly in text and video. Comments arguing against the notability of the subject appear not to look at the sources in detail (e.g. production of the subject? subject being a spokesperson? there is no evidence for this), nor take into account the context of the topic (Censorship in Thailand, Lèse-majesté in Thailand). Republican content is censored in Thailand, a country which is in the same category for press freedom as Venezuela according to Reporters Without Borders [14]. Wikipedia's advice there includes taking into account alternative sources as state sources are unreliable Wikipedia:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources. The article being discussed uses both high standard international press and other independent sources. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As Sj (who reviewed the article at AfC) suggested above, re-draftifying the article until the sourcing can be improved seems like a good compromise. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was waiting to hear back from TFC, but will return to draft presently. I'd be glad to see the article again after improvement. NB: In general, when censorship is an issue, reliable sources in other countries commenting on that specific censorship can also be suitable sources - the Streisand effect in action. – SJ + 23:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:12, 3 February 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nanthida_Rakwong&oldid=1071142111"