Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anuthin Wongsunkakon

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 of the debate was Keep. Stifle (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anuthin Wongsunkakon

I already speedied this once under CSD:A7, but it came back. Rather than get into a delete war, I bring it here. What say you? Was my speedy delete richeous or bogus? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Clear vanity in unclear English. Bucketsofg 01:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but needs cleanup. Seems to be a fairly notable typographer, with some significant publications and fairly big-name clients. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If the company isn't notable enough for an article, the founder probably isn't either. -Dawson 02:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Richeous? --Deville (Talk) 03:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but better still use as redirect and put info under Behaviour Group, which provides typefaces for MTV Thailand amongst others. The subject is notable amongst typographers. Tyrenius 05:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Starblind & Tyrenius (and possibly merge per the latter), but needs some work. Seems notable if what it says is correct. u p p l a n d 07:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. This designer is quite notable in Thailand. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:BIO, notable designer. --Terence Ong 10:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, its hard to determine what is important in typographer terms. I know that movie stars get in for less that getting their work recognised by a major overseas authority in their field. Don't delete because of bad english on the current page. Ansell 13:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to Delete myself because he's non-notable. RGTraynor 15:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't care how non-notable he is, it's not worth deleting yourself over. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That was a good one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL Tyrenius 21:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, the article needs a LOT of work but the subject seems to be at least somewhat notable. Wstaffor 21:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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.