Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suwit Paipromrat

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 delete. Tone 07:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suwit Paipromrat

[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)

Fails WP:NFOOTY. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first two citations already in the article are in-depth profile pieces by Goal.com and Siam Sport, both reliable sources, thus satisfying the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The one by Goal.com looks SIGCOV but the Siam one is an interview from top to bottom, there isn't coverage, much less SIGCOV, even in between the bits. The rest have no qualifying coverage either. Since this is a footballer who doesn't even meet the often laughed-at lax requirements of NFOOTY, we need to incontrovertibly establish GNG. I am not sure that two sources would meet the "multiple" requirement for someone who doesn't meet an SNG, and we've got just one. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair analysis of the source, but I'd say whether a subject meets the GNG should be viewed independently of the SNG. A single piece of coverage is probably already more than that received by half of the Thai subjects who pass NFOOTY, which I agree is overly lax. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no footy ID and coverage is very low for GNG. (F5pillar---/ ^{'Messager🖋📩}) 11:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely fails NFOOTY and doesn't look sufficient enough for GNG Spiderone 19:08, 1 October 2020 (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.