Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gai-ob-fang (2nd nomination)

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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gai-ob-fang

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

Previous AfD closed as no consensus due to lack of participation despite being relisted 3 times. Original rationale is as follows:

Prod contested without explanation. No evidence that this chicken dish meets notability criteria. Found a YouTube video and a blog post and that's it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. 16:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. 16:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's an alternate spelling that appears to be more accurate: "Gai ob fuang"

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should this have been re-nominated immediately after the previous AfD? However, nobody seems to care so why not just delete it and get over with? --115.67.34.67 (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it appears this book (คำภูแสน, ประสิทธิ์. อาชีพอิสระ. กรุงเทพฯ: บรรณกิจ. ISBN 9742222266.) has a chapter dedicated to making a business out of the dish. The current article is in such bad shape though that I agree it would be better to just wipe it and hope someone in the future will create a better stub. --115.67.34.67 (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2012 (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.