Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Tanchanok Good

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. ✗plicit 11:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Tanchanok Good

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

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

Actress/model without enough in depth coverage to meet

WP:NACTOR are not met. John B123 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Thailand. John B123 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Fashion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the nominator. Additionally, this article was drafted by an experienced NPP reviewer and it was moved back to mainspace without the notability issues being properly addressed. So, I am now the third editor who considers this article does not belong on main. Given an opportunity to substantiate a claim of notability has been given and not acted upon, I take this to mean notability is not met. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator hasn't explained why the currently cited coverage in Manager Online, Khaosod Online and L'Officiel Thailand necessarily fail to establish notability, and, in any case,
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Searching her name turns up plenty of news coverage, including in English in the Bangkok Post's lifestyle pages[1][2][3] and its learning supplement Student Weekly[4]. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Coverage seems rather routine and not sufficiently in-depth imo MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 6 April 2023 (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.