Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saman Kunan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Tham Luang cave rescue. The delete side is basically arguing WP:BIO1E. The keep side is saying, yeah, but this was a big enough event. Reading WP:BIO1E, I'm of the opinion that it applies here. Some people are arguing that 1E doesn't apply because he was also a cyclist, but I don't see any evidence that his cycling made him notable in any way, so I reject that argument.

There was a suggestion that the discussion at Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue#Saman Kunan article should also be considered. I did take a look at that. What I found was that there's very large overlap between the people who participated in the two discussions, so I didn't feel the talk page discussion added anything that wasn't already expressed here.

As for delete vs merge vs merge and delete, and maybe a few other variations, I don't see any reason to delete. You only do that if you need to hide the history, and there's no reason to do that here. So, we're really left with merge. There's already something about him in the parent article, so merge really means selective merge. It may well be that selective means, everything we need is already there, so don't merge anything more and just turn it into a redirect. I leave that judgement call up to whoever executes the merge. Whatever you decide to merge or not merge, you certainly want to leave a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Kunan

[edit]

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

Saman Kunan (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)

The subject was unknown prior to his death during the Tham Luang cave rescue, making this a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. While his death was unfortunate, his role in the event was not significant. The cycling section fails all criteria at WP:NCYCLING. It is noted that the creation of this article was against opinions expressed at Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue#Saman Kunan article. WWGB (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as recipient of highest award for gallantry in a recognized nation state (1st order of most awesome white elephant and associated honors, I believe), and also per WP:GNG per almost universal detailed coverage now. (Also, due to the relatively small number of skilled divers at the rescue site, and the overwhelming requirements for them due to the circumstances, his role cannot and should not be described as "not significant".) Current article is a horrible incoherent mess, could someone do something with it please. MPS1992 (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Tham Luang cave rescue per WP:ONEEVENT. We would need independent sources that focus significant attention to Kuman's specific role. Cops and firemen are often posthumously honored for one event. None of them have their own article unless their role truly stood out and had significant news coverage aside from the event. Blue Riband► 02:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) As the others have said, the guy apparently has had some coverage before the rescue operation
2) Read my arguments on the talk page of the rescue op article. We have an article about the GUN JFK was shot with. THE GUN. The one event rule really doubles down to the amount of coverage the object received. If there is alot of it - an article may very well be written about the topic. And I believe we have enough coverage for this guy. Openlydialectic (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have ANY idea how much research and coverage - sometimes contradictory - that gun has attracted? No one gives a damn about the gun per se, only about the tons of evidence (and speculation) associated with it. Pincrete (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly my point, the gun is definitively a one-event weapon, just like the murderers various friends, (Ella German, Marina Oswald Porter, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, George de Mohrenschildt, etc), and the murderer himself. And the building. And everything related to the crime. Yet, since they had alot of info written on them thru the last 50 years they got their own articles, so theres a big question do you think one event rule is not applicable to them, but is applicable to this guy Openlydialectic (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in principle. You can read my arguments I've listed about a week about on the talk page of the cave rescue article, plus to add to them this article already exists on two other language versions, and in one of them it's in a really good shape, so there's alot of info we can translate from it. Speaking of translation, right now the article is a mess. I assume the original author attempted to translate the Thai article, but did it poorly and without knowing wikitext markup. IF we could find someone who can speak Thai or at least someone invested enough to try and copy-edit the current article with the help of Google Translate that would be amazing. But in any case, the article should stay unless nobody copyedits it within the next few days. Right now it's a mess not worthy of english wiki. Openlydialectic (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was notified by the nominator. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the nominator's delete request. There are humongous reliable sources about this person from sources in many countries. That is the primary criteria and this article passes. If one reads WP:ONEEVENT, much coverage and many sources override one event. AFD does not consider the quality of the article writing though it is in sore need of major editing. One problem with editing during an AFD is that there is the possibility of those wanting deletion to damage the article by deleting information and making it bad. I say "possibility" not "I accuse you". Vanrich (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet WWGB (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with some misgivings. ONEEVENT, MEMORIAL and TOPICAL. I had to think about this for a while because he is currently a huge name at the centre of news and well known, this will not stand the test of time except, maybe, in Thailand. The article comes across as a memorial, his cycling exploits and funeral are of no concern to an encyclopaedia. The details strictly relevant to the main article, and those only, should remain in the cave rescue article. Considered from the perspective of five years hence, it will become clearer that a seperate page was not warranted. Ex nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above vote was CANVASSED by the AFD nominator. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEx_nihil&type=revision&diff=851251794&oldid=845186505 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanrich (talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Sock comment struck. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. I notified everyone who commented on the article talk page, whether for or against a separate Kunan article. WWGB (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How much weight should we give to an argument that it should be deleted per the seemingly non-existent WP:TOPICAL? Tlhslobus (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nihil admits that it will probably stand the test of time in Thailand. This is not USA Wikipedia. If there are many reliable sources (and their is over 100 in Thai) that is many. The only issue is using those citations in here, which would upset people. Vanrich (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & delete, per ONEEVENT, MEMORIAL and TOPICAL. I'm sorry, but we need to abandon the logic of asking if somebody "deserves" an article, because of short-term coverage, inspired by "heroic" or "tragic" circumstance - as is the case here. Does the subject need an article because his notability cannot be adequately summarised independently of the event with which he is associated? The answer to that is no IMO. All significant info about him is better included in the cave article. Were there to be some inquest into his death or somesuch, subsidiary articles might be justified, but not at present. The volume of available research and info about various figures/items of evidence associated with JFK's assassination is so HUGE, that trying to include them in the event article would be monstrously unworkable. That is why there are articles about relatively peripheral JFK figures, not because we think they are somehow more deserving than Kunan, which is not a judgement we make. Pincrete (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Put even some of the information in the Cave Rescue article and it will be promptly removed citing that it's not rescue related. This has already happened. This is evidence that this sub-article is needed. How much harm is keeping an article that abides by the rules? Some people just want destruction, I'm sorry to say. Vanrich (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As before, how much weight should we give to an argument that it should be deleted per the seemingly non-existent WP:TOPICAL? Tlhslobus (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think we should consider ONEEVENT because many awardees of the Medal of Honor could be so classed. However, he was not granted the highest level of the award, which is often made for non-valorous civil service (kind of like a "thanks for coming" award, if you get my drift).--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
UNTRUE. The guy got First Class, the second highest. That is the same level as Norodom of Cambodia and The Earl Louis Mountbatten (Prince Charles uncle assassinated by the IRA). It is NOT given to 5 year service people. The guy got Knight Grand Cross (First Class), not Member (5th Class). Vanrich (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with and redirect to Tham Luang cave rescue. I've cleaned up this article and took a fresh look at the matter. Aside from his involvement with the rescue operation, there is very little to write about here. My opinion, which I previously stated at Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue, remains unchanged: this article is not needed. I do emphasis that I have a lot of respect for Kunan and the sacrifice he made, and I wish his family, his friends, and his widow all the best in coping with their loss. Reading all the things about him, he genuinely seems to have been a really cool guy. But a Wikipedia article about him would amount to nothing more than a memorial, and that is something which would be better suited elsewhere. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above vote was CANVASSED by the AFD nominator. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AManifestation&type=revision&diff=851251491&oldid=849805231 This canvassing was done only to people who hinted favoring delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanrich (talk • contribs) 20:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Sock comment struck. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. I notified everyone who commented on the article talk page, whether for or against a separate Kunan article. WWGB (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this could also be userfied to the namespace of User:Thai Cave Person, who wrote the original version of this article. - Manifestation (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Thai Cave Rescue article could be userfied to User:Manifestation and only 3-4 sentences in the cave article. Manifestation's suggestion is appreciated but a bad suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanrich (talk • contribs) at 19:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck through my above comment about userfication of this article. That was a stupid idea to begin with, and the account in question has been blocked anyway. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least provisional Keep Weak Keep (weakened by sockpuppetry revelations, as explained below)
    • - We are asked to delete it per ONEEVENT, MEMORIAL and TOPICAL.
      • WP:TOPICAL is seemingly non-existent.
      • WP:MEMORIAL is primarily about not memorializing friends and acquaintances, which is clearly irrelevant here. It does also mention 'otherwise non-notable people', but that would seem to require a quite separate argument that he is not-notable, rather than a mere citation of MEMORIAL.
      • WP:ONEEVENT is thoroughly ambiguous.
        • In the first place it is currently unclear whether his alleged cycling achievements (etc) mean that ONEEVENT may not even be applicable. (However he doesn't satisfy WP:NCYCLING, and thus cannot automatically be presumed to be a notable cyclist)
        • Secondly ONEEVENT allows a separate article where there is sufficient reliable source coverage, and there seems to be plenty of this in the Thai media (thus seemingly satisfying WP:GNG). So we would seemingly have to exclude a lot of this if we are to keep the item short enough to fit into our existing article on the event without making it unwieldy, and this in turn seems liable to lead to all sorts of harmful (because time-consuming) alleged and/or actual violations of WP:BIAS, WP:NOTCENSORED, etc.
        • Incidentally, a seemingly rather similar topical one-event dead 'national hero' from another recent event featured on ITN is Arnaud Beltrame. Per WP:IAR (and the related WP:5P5) as well as per WP:BIAS, etc, whether fairly or otherwise, it might not be good for Wikipedia's reputation if we appear to only include such 'national heroes' when they just happen to be white.
          • However the revelation that the article was created and supported by a sockpuppet probably significantly reduces the risk that deletion will result in reputational damage to Wikipedia, so I've now changed from 'Keep' to 'Weak Keep'.
    • There is also a separate question of whether it is a violation of WP:BIAS to delete from English Wikipedia an article which I suspect few sane people would attempt to delete from Thai Wikipedia, and whether we have any rules preventing a Thai Wikipedia article being translated and copied into English Wikipedia, and, if so, what those rules might be, etc... (if any such rules exist, I haven't noticed them being mentioned here)
    • (Note: as my comments in the previous discussion at the event article make clear, I was no fan of some of the arguments originally put forward for creating this article, but that is not a valid reason for ignoring good arguments for keeping it, nor for unquestioningly accepting questionable arguments for deleting it).
    • Tlhslobus (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the sockpuppetry affects the article. When it comes to notability, it is not the reputation of the writer that merits consideration, but the benefit to the reader. If an article is right to exist, then it doesn't matter if it was started by a 15-year veteran with more than 100,000 edits, or a new account created for sockpuppetry. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 11:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: To clarify, Kunan was awarded the Knight Grand Cross (First Class), which per Orders, decorations, and medals of Thailand is approximately eleventh in the order of precedence (out of nearly 50 decorations listed). With respect to the point about being "bestowed regularly for five years of service" - this statement is uncited in the decoration's article, and to be honest, probably refers to the lower ranks of the order (such as Sixth and Seventh Class). — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 09:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert in the Thai honor system - however this isn't close to being the nation's highest award for valour for SOLDIER(1). The notability of the individual seems to rise completely from the event - the cave rescue - there is no need for a spinoff here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd been ruminating over this for a while, so I was pleased to read Tlhslobus' eloquent elaboration of pretty much everything I had been considering. I agree that MEMORIAL is irrelevant and superfluous here (the article has been created and maintained by perfect strangers, so only the notability argument is relevant, which simply invokes other policies), and by necessity, ONEEVENT is actually quite nuanced when it comes to topics (being that it posits single-event notability as a product of both the significance of an individual's role and the significance of the event itself). That said, it has a couple of main aims I feel should be made explicit:
  1. It is partly to avoid creating articles that have no possibility of expansion beyond a short stub, no matter what quality the limited number of sources;
  2. It is partly to avoid keeping unnecessarily extensive articles on people who had a small role in a barely-notable event.
To address the first point: From the article on the Thai Wikipedia (which I believe is actually the source of a lot of the current material), and from the sources that have illustrated Kunan's life, I think there is enough evidence of material enough for a reasonable biography already (the Thai page is already a reasonable length, with details of his life, family, and career; to invoke Tlhslobus' mention of WP:BIAS vs translated content, I believe it is the source text for the original version of this article), and this is only a couple of weeks after his death. While I don't want to get into WP:CRYSTAL issues, I would be very surprised if further material didn't come out to further elaborate on his biography, so I can't see the first point being an issue.
Now, with regards to the second point: The event itself is clearly notable. It occupied headlines internationally for a prolonged period (incidentally alongside the FIFA World Cup, which is something watched by approximately half the population of the human race) and has become a part of popular knowledge and perception about Thailand. Through this, the actions of the volunteers have come to symbolise modern Thailand for people both inside and outside Thailand. Volunteers who gave up their time to help with every aspect of an incredibly complex operation, farmers who graciously accepted the flooding of their fields with the pumping water, and divers who put their lives on the line to ensure the safe rescue. As part of the last group, Kunan gave his life in this, and in his death has become a figurehead for the voluntary sacrifices that got those children out safely. As one of the rescuing divers, he played a significant role in the escape (arguably as significant as the other divers), but in his voluntary sacrifice, has become pivotal in understanding the event and the culture surrounding it. To delete the article would be to diminish Wikipedia's coverage of an event significant in the modern history of a country. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 08:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTMEMORIAL states "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others". Hence, it is not irrelevant here, as asserted above. WWGB (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTMEMORIAL actually states: Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.
  • Both the above claims of irrelevance acknowledge this 'others', but basically point out that this requires an argument that the dead person is not notable, not a simple assertion that MEMORIAL is being violated.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
already tried and was removed Somebody added a large block of text and it was immediately removed. To try to merge would start edit wars. This bio is a legitimate separate article. Vanrich (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, just Delete as per Ex nihil. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and delete I read about this story in the news. It is sad when even a single person dies, but Wikipedia does not exist as a memorial. I do not believe it will be too difficult to just include content about Kunan in the article on the (only) subject that he is made notable for.Nobody's Keeper (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Current article is not a memorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanrich (talk • contribs) at 23:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It basically amounts to that. There's a tiny bit about where he came from and what sports he practised. Then the article describes how he died, how he was posthumously decorated, and how he got a royally-sponsored funeral. That's it. That's the entire article. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who was apparently closely related to User:Thai Cave Person, amongst others. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I just saw that. Thai Cave Person (talk · contribs), the original creator of this article, is also a sock. He was a character created by the same person behind Vanrich, presumably from Thailand, complete with poor English prose to make it look believable. - Manifestation (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I don't wish to appear vindictive, but isn't there something in policy about content created by sockpuppets? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: WP:SOCKHELP guidance basically says (under §Deleting articles or article edits) that it isn't cut and dry. If it's large-scale vandalism or generally unproductive, then treat it as such. Otherwise, treat it as any other disputed content. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 11:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. I can't help feeling that many editors here might see this whole discussion, including the original article creation, as an annoying waste of time. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but there have still been points put forward by MPS1992, Openlydialectic, Tlhslobus, and myself in favour of the article being kept. To be honest, I had also repointed an alternative romanisation (Saman Gunan) to this page, and was preparing to translate the Thai article before I'd seen this page already existed, so while the sockpuppetry has wasted people's time in engaging with dishonest accounts, I wouldn't say it's entirely invalidated everyting it's touched. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 11:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're correct. All the contributions by those editors and yourself have been made in perfectly good faith. There just seems to be an odd contradiction between the striking of "sockpuppet comments" here while we continue to discuss an entire "sockpuppet article". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I rewrote this "sockpuppet article" a few days ago. Others made changes too. There's little left of the original. - Manifestation (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Encyclopedia material can be useful, or not useful, regardless of who creates it. And it should be judged on it's own inherent merits. I hope you don't feel too tainted by the sock revelations. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. And yes you're right. Banned means banned, but it would be counter-productive to mindlessly delete anything a banned user wrote. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the sockpuppetry revelations are not entirely irrelevant to the argument - I've reduced my above !vote from Keep to Weak Keep, as I think the revelations probably now significantly reduce any risk that deletion will damage Wikipedia's reputation.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If anything I would make the argument that the sockpupeteer wanted to prevent the article about this person from appearing on Wikipedia, so he created the article himself in such a poor shape we still cant fix it. I mean, just look at what the article looked like when the sockpupeteer created it: [[1]] Openlydialectic (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And someone else might make the argument that the sockpuppeteer certainly wanted the article to appear, and so created an article in such a poor shape that they guessed many folks would try and join in with fixing it. I'm not sure I'd argue that. But we'll never know either way, will we. Bluff? Double bluff? Who knows?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOREASON - please, read this. You need to explain your position in any voting discussion on Wikipedia, otherwise your vote won't count. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't WP:BIO1E reason enough? That paragraph basically sums it all up. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. As I and others have argued, BIO1E / ONEEVENT is not a hard-and-fast rule, but involves looking at both the importance of the event and the role of the person in the event. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 14:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Manifestation: He added WP:BIO1E after I made my comment. Originally it was just a vote with no explanation Openlydialectic (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Openlydialectic: No. - Manifestation (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Manifestation: Sorry, my mistake, I guess I hallucinated it Openlydialectic (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it is quite that cut-and-dry. Gavrilo Princip is only notable for one event, but it was a highly notable event that changed the course of world history. While this event is not quite that significant, it is still a significant event in the recent history of Thailand, and Kunan's sacrifice has made him a figurehead for all the sacrifices that volunteers made to ensure the group's safe escape. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 11:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect without deletion; no merging required as contents are already there I understand the applicability of WP:BIO1E; however, there is no need to delete; a redirect would do good, given that his name is quite well searched. We are an encyclopedia, whose objective should be directing information seekers to the right articles. Lourdes 05:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect Sorry, but WP:BIO1E No merging needed because theres a already a minibio of him at the cave article. Curdle (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. in this case, the one event is world-famous, which is sufficient for notability . DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 29 July 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saman_Kunan&oldid=859159623"