Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parapadsorn Disdamrong

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. There is some disagreement herein about whether or not the depth of coverage of the sources about the subject are sufficient to qualify a standalone article, and also disagreement regarding the overall reliability of the sources. Ultimately, no consensus for a particular action has emerged in this discussion. Of note is that as of this close, the article is no longer an unreferenced BLP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parapadsorn Disdamrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Effectively unsourced BLP (no sources, just an external link that is related to the subject) The Banner talk 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unable to find any in depth coverage from reliable sources. Subject appears to fail WP:BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject has won a national beauty pageant, and then appeared at two international pageants, and was first runner-up at one of them. I added two reliable sources, the Bamgkok Post and Matichon Online. Kraxler (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Routine smattering of press release style coverage for appearing in a minor pageant. Tarc (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, Miss Supranational is one of the major five beauty pageants of the world. Also, in the absence of a guideline for national beauty queens, I'd like to say that "in-depth" coverage for beauty queens should consist in the publication of their images, not of written texts, because they are notable for their beauty, not for their utterings. Kraxler (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the organiser is likely to say that its pageant is very important. But the fact is that the article is already deleted five times. And even for beauty queens WP:RS should be taken into account. The Banner talk 20:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, Global Beauties organizes the Miss Grand Slam cyber pageant, they do not organize the Miss Supranational or any other live pageant, but they say that Miss Supranational and four other pageants are the five major beauty pageants of the world. Global Beauties is a RS for beauty pageants. Wikipedia is based on sources, not on the opinions of the editors. Second, could you explain what "article is already deleted five times"? Not this one, it looks like being the first nomination. Anyway, you nominated it as an unsourced BLP, and it's not unsourced anymore. I suggest you withdraw the nomination. Kraxler (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Miss Supranational, that seems to be the article in question. It was prodded in 2010, then mass deleted with other stuff because of the creator, then deleted as copyvio. In 2012, it was recreated and passed AfD "no consensus" with 4 keep votes. In 2014, it was renominated at AfD and deleted with almost no input, and later speedied G4. That makes it rather pompous to say "was deleted already five times". Fact is that it was kept once, and was deleted once after a rather deficient discussion. Besides the pageant was first held around 2009, and may have attained notability under the Wiki guidelines in the meanwhile. I'll check it out. Kraxler (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See (in-depth) coverage of "Miss Supranational 2014" (14,200 hits at Google News) in The Times of India, also saying that it is a "prestigious international beauty pageant", in the Business Standard (Mumbai), R7 (Grupo Record, Brazil), Rappler (Philippines), Zeibiz, Inquirer.net and so on... Kraxler (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Global Beauties is connected with the subject of the article. That casts serious doubt on claims to being RS. While an OP can withdraw a nomination anytime s/he wants, all it does is remove their delete vote unless there are no other outstanding delete votes. In this case there is, and I stand by mine. I am not seeing enough in depth coverage from RS sources to meet GNG or BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are three mainstream news sources in the article, talking about the event/person. Kraxler (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Independent sources#Examples and tell me how Global Beauties is connected to Parapadsorn Disdamrong: is it (herself), (her) family members, (her) friends, (her) employer, or (her) employees? Thanks in advance. Kraxler (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see this: Miss Grand International 2014]. That is by now deleted six times as advertising and/or not notable. And she did not win that competition, so no need to hammer it in.The Banner talk 16:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine where you got the notion that I "hammered this in". We know she ended up in the Top 10, it's in the article. Anyway, you are quite mistaken: Miss Grand International 2014 was deleted once after a discussion, the other five were procedural deletions, mostly for lack of content, in all those cases the question whether the topic was notable or not was not debated. Besides, I'd rather you stay on-topic. Everytime I refute your arguments you throw another tidbit of info in the room, instead of answering the previous argument. That's a very poor debating style. Please also check out WP:SCNR, it's really good advice. Kraxler (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kraxler, per your suggestion I went back and rechecked all of the sources and external links. The coverage of the subject is at best trivial and in passing. IMO it does not come close to that required by GNG and BASIC. I will also add WP:1E to the equation. Under the circumstances I have to stand by my delete vote. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She has appeared in four events, won one, almost won another and scored high in the other two. That's a fact. Kraxler (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of which rings the notability bell. Beyond which that sounds like a pretty run of the mill resume for contestants in this sort of field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: We're up against some people promoting beauty pageant winners, and there isn't any established hierarchy or guideline on the subject that makes the decision simple. For the .en Wikipedia, we have some reason to be wary. Think about how many separate pageant confederations there are in the U.S., the U.K., and then how informal the "Miss Universe," "Miss World," etc. pageants are organized. The burden of proof is going to have to be on the article to establish notability, because even if we were dealing with a pageant winner of an unambiguously national competition, there's question about whether being a pageant winner is notable by itself. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're up against people crusading against beauty pageant winners. They downplay their achievement (calling national events "minor", and calling in-depth editorial news coverage "press releases") and renominate articles for deletion that have been kept several times before (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Globe International (2nd nomination)). But you're right in saying that there's no specific guideline, but there should be one. I think I'll propose one next week, to avoid another time-sink for the community. Kraxler (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Kraxler, if I might, to prevent the confusion, it might be well to work with validating and establishing the pageant circuits first. When one of those is confirmed as a clear pass, then a given iteration of that pageant would be if that national iteration has strong funding and a consistent host. Then it would be possible to have an article on the individual pageants. That may never get to the point, though, where a winner of a pageant is considered notable for that alone, since winning on "Jeopardy!" or coming in third in a national track meet isn't. People have good reason to default toward "delete": there are loads of independent pageants, and rich men and drinks companies run loads of them. Winning "Miss Pneumatic Tire 1936" might be due to being one of ten women working at the Goodyear plant, while winning "Miss America 1936" would arguably have required a great deal more, in terms of accomplishment. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To get a clear position on the pageants would certainly help. To establish a guideline would centralise discussion in one place. In the meanwhile, Miss Grand Thailand (nominated for deletion) is/was affiliated with Miss Earth, Miss Globe International, Miss Grand International and Miss Tourism International, all existing articles. Miss Globe International was just kept for the 3rd time, while The Banner tried to lecture a former arb on sources. Miss Grand Thailand is also affiliated with Miss Supranational which is described by The Times of India (the major newspaper of India) as a "prestigios international beauty pageant" (link above), and is counted by The Times of Beauty (an independent news outlet specialising in this segment) among the "four best beauty pageants in the planet" (link below). Kraxler (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Won a national event, that seems notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - her Thai name is RIGHT THERE. It's not hard to search for this.... [1], [2] [3], [4], [5] —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Routine press release-like coverage is not an indicator of notability, nor is winning a minor pageant. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major newspapers/TV stations cover events because they think their readers/viewers are interested in them. And that establishes notability. This one is certainly a major celebrity in Thailand. Kraxler (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you should be able to add multiple independent sources. But what you added was just a passing mention and a related thingy, no sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 21:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you should be able to answer the question which Ad Orientem did not answer: Please see WP:Independent sources#Examples and tell me how Global Beauties is connected to Parapadsorn Disdamrong: is it (herself), (her) family members, (her) friends, (her) employer, or (her) employees? Thanks in advance. Kraxler (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are the first one not to recognize a website dedicated to pageants and its contestants as not being related to a contestant of a pageant. The Banner talk 23:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You better answer my question, guidelines exist for a purpose. Here iyt is again: How is Global Beauties connected to Parapadsorn Disdamrong: is it (herself), (her) family members, (her) friends, (her) employer, or (her) employees [as expressly required at WP:Independent sources]?

+1. Unless I misread something, this is the same org that promoted the pageants she participated in. The source coverage is trivial and incidental and thus simply fails to ring the notability bell. Period. End of story. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you misread something. Global Beauties is a site which reports on beauty pageants, like The Rolling Stone reports on music. They promoted a cyber pageant in which the subject finished in the Top 10, the placing is determined by the public who votes over the internet (that's why it is called a "cyber pageant", no physical venue). The ref is used to establish the fact, in that case it is a WP:Reliable source because I assume they know the result of their own pageant. For all other pageants, it is an WP:Independent source because they report on this but are not involved in the organizatuon or have any other financial interest in any particular pageant. It would be like saying the New York Times is related to anybody they talk about because the paper earns money with peddling news, and these people are subject of the news. Anyway, I'm still waiting for The Banner's answer to my question. Kraxler (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or what about The Times of Beauty which says "The Times of Beauty offers annual coverage of the four best beauty pageants in the planet: Miss World, Miss Universe, Miss International and Miss Supranational. The website and its owner are not related in any form or manner whatsoever with these international pageants..." Kraxler (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, Excuse me, but the very first one I linked is not "press release-like coverage" but a lengthy profile on her. The second one couldn't be called a PR either... Did you bother to click on any of the links? —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to identity actual reliable sources is beyond my ability to assist you with, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess I just must be reliable source-identification challenged, and surely in need of your impressive abilities. So why don't you explain why this Thai newspaper is not a reliable source, for starters? —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources provided by Мандичка above seem sufficient. Thai Rath is the number 1 newspaper in Thailand. Prachachat is a major business newspaper. TNEWS is a news cable/satellite TV. In the article itself, I see Bangkok Post (top 2 English-language newspaper) and Matichon (another popular newspaper). Prachachat and Matichon are mentioned in this article Khao Sod. This link from Thai Rath shows that she has 9 news coverage from the No. 1 newspaper [6]. So it's not just one news and then quickly forgotten. If you cannot read Thai, try Google translate. Then you can distinguish between news that briefly mention the person or an article writen solely about her. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2015 (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.