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. as there is disagreement over whether the sources found are sufficient for establishing notability. I don't think a third relist would help us arrive at a consensus here so I'm closing this now. LizRead!Talk! 21:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Appears to be a non-notable individual due to the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sources primarily comprise passing mentions or interviews, which is also consistent with
WP:BEFORE. Despite occasional appearances as a guest on TV shows, this alone does not establish notability. Additionally, the author appears to have a COI/UPE, considering their edit history.
GSS💬 16:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm not seeing evidence for COI, which Crcolas has
explicitly denied. If you believe otherwise, please raise an investigation at
WP:COIN. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 19:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Reviews of this author's work have appeared in
Publishers Weekly (
link), Foreword (
link),
The New Zealand Herald (
link),
Booklist (
link), and other places (
link 1,
2, and
3). There has also been significant coverage of the author as an expert on street food in places like the New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Bangkok Post, and a large number of other media outlets and TV shows (many of these are already linked in the article's citations). All of this shows the author meets the notability guidelines for creatives listed at
WP:Author. --
SouthernNights (
talk) 19:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, such reviews don't give a free pass to
notability no matter where they were published. Additionally, the other sources you mentioned are merely passing mentions and do not constitute the significant coverage required by
WP:GNG.
GSS💬 20:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
SouthernNights was making an argument under WP:AUTHOR #3, not the GNG. It says, ... Such a person is notable if: ... 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) --
Paul_012 (
talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
To satisfy WP:AUTHOR#3, the book must pass
WP:NBOOK, which is not the case here. Furthermore, looking at the disclaimer in the Foreword, it indicates that her book was not selected by them for review, but rather she sent her book and requested a review. The disclaimer reads: "Disclosure: This article is not an endorsement, but a review. The publisher of this book provided free copies of the book to have their book reviewed by a professional reviewer..."GSS💬 04:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
For authors and other creative professionals, reviews are used along with overall media coverage to establish notability. And the language on the Foreword review doesn't change the fact that it is a review. Numerous publishers provide copies of books for review consideration. That is very different from a paid review or paying the reviewer. Foreword still selected the book for review. And you are absolutely wrong that to meet WP:AUTHOR#3 their books must pass
WP:NBOOK. That has never been a notability guideline or requirement for any author or creative professional.
SouthernNights (
talk) 13:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, with regards to your claim that the media coverage isn't "significant coverage,"
the basic criteria under notability states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." I believe that is what we have here with all the media coverage of this person as a street food expert. This author has been featured as a street food expert in a large number of media outlets and on some well-known TV shows. When that is combined with the reviews of her books, then notability is established.
SouthernNights (
talk) 13:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Also, I'm not sure what you meant by "Current sources primarily comprise passing mentions or interviews, which is also consistent with WP:BEFORE." Did you perhaps mean to point to some other page? --
Paul_012 (
talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
With the term 'current sources,' I am referring to the sources already present in the article.
GSS💬 04:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
But what does WP:BEFORE say about them? That's the art I don't understand. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 09:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I can't decide what my vote is, but GSS, what's your problem? Don't make this discussion problematic. Someone presented reliable independent sources, but you always say, in many Thai-related AfD discussions, in some way, that these are not reliable, passing them off as mentioned, not independent, and dismissing interview pieces, blah blah... etc, even these coverages are pretty fine. In my view, these sources are okay. Please stay cool and don't resort to WP:IDONTLIKE. Thanks
180.183.224.201 (
talk) 18:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The sources:
this source published by a popular magazine is an interview so not independent.
this is also an interview
I stopped here as I went deeper on Google, but no reliable sources were found. Since it fails notability guidelines, delete.
Toadette(
Let's discuss together!) 07:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: Multiple book reviews as given above, and this from New Zealand
[1] and one from Indonesia
[2], I think we have enough for notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I do not see any in-depth coverage about her in any reputable newspaper rather than self-authored articles, however there are some book reviews from reliable sources that may make her notable.
Atighot (
talk) 22:05, 22 March 2024 (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.
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. as there is disagreement over whether the sources found are sufficient for establishing notability. I don't think a third relist would help us arrive at a consensus here so I'm closing this now. LizRead!Talk! 21:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Appears to be a non-notable individual due to the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sources primarily comprise passing mentions or interviews, which is also consistent with
WP:BEFORE. Despite occasional appearances as a guest on TV shows, this alone does not establish notability. Additionally, the author appears to have a COI/UPE, considering their edit history.
GSS💬 16:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm not seeing evidence for COI, which Crcolas has
explicitly denied. If you believe otherwise, please raise an investigation at
WP:COIN. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 19:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Reviews of this author's work have appeared in
Publishers Weekly (
link), Foreword (
link),
The New Zealand Herald (
link),
Booklist (
link), and other places (
link 1,
2, and
3). There has also been significant coverage of the author as an expert on street food in places like the New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Bangkok Post, and a large number of other media outlets and TV shows (many of these are already linked in the article's citations). All of this shows the author meets the notability guidelines for creatives listed at
WP:Author. --
SouthernNights (
talk) 19:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, such reviews don't give a free pass to
notability no matter where they were published. Additionally, the other sources you mentioned are merely passing mentions and do not constitute the significant coverage required by
WP:GNG.
GSS💬 20:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
SouthernNights was making an argument under WP:AUTHOR #3, not the GNG. It says, ... Such a person is notable if: ... 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) --
Paul_012 (
talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
To satisfy WP:AUTHOR#3, the book must pass
WP:NBOOK, which is not the case here. Furthermore, looking at the disclaimer in the Foreword, it indicates that her book was not selected by them for review, but rather she sent her book and requested a review. The disclaimer reads: "Disclosure: This article is not an endorsement, but a review. The publisher of this book provided free copies of the book to have their book reviewed by a professional reviewer..."GSS💬 04:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
For authors and other creative professionals, reviews are used along with overall media coverage to establish notability. And the language on the Foreword review doesn't change the fact that it is a review. Numerous publishers provide copies of books for review consideration. That is very different from a paid review or paying the reviewer. Foreword still selected the book for review. And you are absolutely wrong that to meet WP:AUTHOR#3 their books must pass
WP:NBOOK. That has never been a notability guideline or requirement for any author or creative professional.
SouthernNights (
talk) 13:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, with regards to your claim that the media coverage isn't "significant coverage,"
the basic criteria under notability states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." I believe that is what we have here with all the media coverage of this person as a street food expert. This author has been featured as a street food expert in a large number of media outlets and on some well-known TV shows. When that is combined with the reviews of her books, then notability is established.
SouthernNights (
talk) 13:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Also, I'm not sure what you meant by "Current sources primarily comprise passing mentions or interviews, which is also consistent with WP:BEFORE." Did you perhaps mean to point to some other page? --
Paul_012 (
talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
With the term 'current sources,' I am referring to the sources already present in the article.
GSS💬 04:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
But what does WP:BEFORE say about them? That's the art I don't understand. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 09:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I can't decide what my vote is, but GSS, what's your problem? Don't make this discussion problematic. Someone presented reliable independent sources, but you always say, in many Thai-related AfD discussions, in some way, that these are not reliable, passing them off as mentioned, not independent, and dismissing interview pieces, blah blah... etc, even these coverages are pretty fine. In my view, these sources are okay. Please stay cool and don't resort to WP:IDONTLIKE. Thanks
180.183.224.201 (
talk) 18:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The sources:
this source published by a popular magazine is an interview so not independent.
this is also an interview
I stopped here as I went deeper on Google, but no reliable sources were found. Since it fails notability guidelines, delete.
Toadette(
Let's discuss together!) 07:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: Multiple book reviews as given above, and this from New Zealand
[1] and one from Indonesia
[2], I think we have enough for notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I do not see any in-depth coverage about her in any reputable newspaper rather than self-authored articles, however there are some book reviews from reliable sources that may make her notable.
Atighot (
talk) 22:05, 22 March 2024 (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.