Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boonsong Chaisingkananont

Boonsong Chaisingkananont

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]
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]