Talk:Benja Apan

Draftification

Scope creep, why do you think the currently cited news reportage by the Bangkok Post[1], The Nation[2] and Prachatai[3][4][5][6] are inadequate for verification? --Paul_012 (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Paul 012: Because it is routine coverage of some women protesting, but not only her. It is WP:NOTNEWS and non of it is in-depth. Several refs are court report from the paper of record. Of the first four references in the article, 1 is youtube, non-rs. 2 is a blog - non-Rs. 3 is bbc and doesn't mention here, 4 is reuters, which doesn't mention her either. This is a BLP so needs secondary. Half the article is unsourced. It needs to have at least WP:THREE secondary source in the first three references that show she is notable. It doesn't have any of this and half is unsourced. scope_creep^Talk 12:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you looking at the links I provided? These news articles (except [4]) are primarily about her, and are not passing mentions. I don't get how the order of references in an article can possibly be used to determine anything, as it's automatically generated from the order in which they are cited. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, the "blog" label on Amnesty International Thailand's website does not indicate that the articles are self-published blogs, but that they are non-press-release articles published by Amnesty, under the organization's name, through its editorial process. Given that they are an advocacy group, I understand questioning their reliability, but an ongoing RfC at WP:RSN is seeing the majority of responses leaning toward Amnesty International being generally reliable for factual reporting, and I'm not finding the interview-based article's use here to be anywhere near unacceptable regarding BLP issues. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

They not self-published, and Amnesty International is certainly notable and I would say in any instance it would be reliable source, but it is another interview. Reviewing the order of references aren't particularly defined anywhere but it is the first place you look when your reviewing it. I'm not questioning the fact that references are unreliable, they just no that non-depth nor independent and a lot of it is routine coverage. Many many folk protest, all over the world, all the time, everywhere. I wrote and article about a women protestor about 4 weeks ago. They're needs to be more in-depth for a BLP. The best you can do is resubmit it, the under the original editor and left another editor review it. scope_creep^Talk 13:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Paul 012: I resubmitted it and took out the youtube video, which was another primary reference. I'm not doing any more than that. scope_creep^Talk 13:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Scope creep, there are quite many activists in Thailand such as Chonthicha Jaengraew, why don't you remove it too? I still don't see the point of removing Benja Apan, since she is one of the important figures in 2020-2021 protests in Thailand. Eventhough, she gains prominence in late timeline of the protests. If you use this standard, then there are no one to be in Wikipedia, giving the freedom of the press in Thailand as you know it. There are limited coverage for a reason.--Polyesterchips (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as the draftification has been disputed, I've restored the article per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)