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 merge to Censorship in Thailand. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boonsong Chaisingkananont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Stub article about a professor in Thailand who is allegedly a victim of poor human rights laws; while it's referenced, it seems to be a clear example of WP:BLP1E. His status as an assistant professor means that he's not notable simply for his academic position. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not notable as an academic, but the notability is political. BLP iE does not apply, because the notability for the political event is related to his professional role and not incidental. DGG (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know where DGG got the idea that blp1e does not apply when the event is related to the person's profession. It seems to be a distinction without a difference. As currently written, this article is, in fact, a canonical wp:blp1e violation. The sources cited are not about the professor but about the controversy over the exam he administered and the Thai government's reaction. Per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, either sources must be found that are actually about the professor, or the article must be refactored and renamed to make clear that it covers the controversy and not the professor. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not proven to be notable under WP:PROF, but there is quite enough on him and the controversy - he was accused of Lese majeste over exam questions and refuses to provide the students' exam papers. This type of article is not really what WP:BLP1E is for, which is much more for people incidentally, not integrally and actively involved in "an" event. (Prolonged situation and dispute are better descriptions here.) There is no "larger subject" and by his own decisions he has not "essentially remain[ed] a low-profile individual." Renaming is a kind of keep, not really for AfD, and in this case clumsy and not too sensible - it does not in any way protect anyone and is more appropriate for things like murders.John Z (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like DGG, you are trying to draw an artificial distinction. It is simply not true that blp1e makes a distinction between "incidental" and "integral" involvement. Nor should it. Boxxy, Daniel Brandt, Allison Stokke, and Crystal Gail Mangum were involved "integrally" in their respective controversies. But those articles were removed because Wikipedia does not host biographies when the sources actually cover something other than a person. Contrary to your suggestion, there is a difference between having one's name in a Wikipedia article and having a Wikipedia article that purports to be one's biography. The potential for harm to the person is much greater in the latter case.

    Turning to the article under discussion, it is not true that the sources are about him. Your description of the controversy itself belies your own conclusion that "there is quite enough on him" and that "there is no larger subject." Of course there is a larger subject here--it is the very subject you describe and refer to repeatedly in your comment as "the controversy" and the "prolonged situation and dispute." Unfortunately, no one's given a name to the controversy, and it naturally seems odd to you to give the article a title that's not an actual name. Nevertheless, the sources cover the controversy, not the man, so the Wikipedia article should cover the controversy, not the man. Likewise, your suggestion that he is not a "low-profile individual" is unsubstantiated and belied by the lack of sources about him. His refusal to cooperate with the authorities was not a self-promoting decision, and indeed, it didn't promote him, it engendered the controversy that is the actual subject of the cited sources. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Some good points, but what title the article should be under is secondary, "Boonsong Chaisingkananont" or the "Boonsong Chaisingkananont controversy". Since the articles would be identical, and his name would be a redirect to the controversy, from one point of view, the second is not "a larger subject," and the sources are about him. The wording of the second "cover the event, not the person" paragraph of BLP1E doesn't make too much sense in such no larger subject "event" = "person" articles. So I think the potential for harm is identical (and very small - more coverage of such controversies usually protects the individual). I don't care about the title, just that the actual content be kept, so we are probably not arguing about much, just saying the other is making artificial distinctions. I think a distinction between incidental and integral is not irrelevant to BLP1E - e.g. in "larger subject" and "low-profile" Self-promotion per se is not too relevant; assassins do not self-promote, but perform acts that tend to put them in the public eye, which they usually avoid. Chaisingkananont did not self-promote for its own sake , but acted in a way which he must have known could lead to publicity which in all likelihood he now welcomes. In either case, I don't think the person should be viewed by Wikipedia as desiring to remain or actually "remaining a low-profile individual."John Z (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In case this is confusing: my point in the last sentence is to say "if we find his recent political activity insufficient for the article, we should delete, because his position as a professor by itself isn't enough for notability". Simply trying to make sure that you know my opinion about the guy's notability before this recent controversy. Nyttend (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment People are notable for what they do. a mid;-level academic who takes on the King of Thailand is notable, if the newspapers pick it up,and so they did. One event is notable if the event is important. It's meant to let us discard trivia and tabloid style gossip. This is not. as for professional vs other: if an academic gets in trouble with the government there for something unrelated to his profession,it is likely to be less notable than when it involves such basic issues of academic freedom intrinsic to the profession. DGG (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. DGG states that “a mid-level academic who takes on the King of Thailand is notable”. I agree, but only if he or she does that consistently over the years, and gains notability as a result of that. Otherwise, what we have is a “one event” incident, which is covered in WP:1E.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If the biographical article is not kept, coverage of the event should be merged to Censorship in Thailand, Lèse majesté, or another appropriate target. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 09:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Paul_012 ^(talk) 09:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with DGG's comment above and was going to say much the same. That the notability is related to his job is important, and notable cases like this involving academic freedom should be kept as a general principle. In fact he does satisfy WP:PROF - under #7 "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." ( or #4 "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.") BLP1E generally advises merging, not deletion, though it is frequently misapplied that way. Because he is notable for something integral to his lifework as an academic, it is illogical to use it here. If an academic or author writes one paper or book that is important enough, that can make him notable. Should we delete such articles? Should Chaisingkananont get accused of Lese majeste against a different king?John Z (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever I think on other subjects, I don't want to see the guy get accused of Lese majeste against King Norodom Sihamoni or anyone else :-) Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he already has :(. ; that's the notaability DGG (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2009 (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.