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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RoCo^(talk) 09:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banjob Benjama (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)

Article seems like a hoax. There is no mention of the words 'banjob' or 'benjama' in the single linked article, Mongkut, the supposed father of the person about whom this article was written. Also, the references are not in English. A person with knowledge of Thai (?) should be asked to verify them. RoCo^(talk) 17:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't know that it is a blatant hoax, but there does seem scant reliable evidence to back up this claim. Banjob Benjama's mother, Chao Chom Manda Pae Thamsaroj, appears to have been a consort to Mongkut, but there is no evidence (in English, at any rate) to prove the claim that Banjob was Mongkut's offspring. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: definitely not a hoax. Don't know why it would be presumed so. The two references in the article are to proclamations in the Royal Gazette regarding her death, which is as reliable an official source as can be found from the 19th century. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For English sources, I expect she'd be covered in Finestone, Jeffrey (2000). A royal album : the children and grandchildren of King Mongkut (Rama IV) of Siam. Bangkok: Loma Holding. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumed it to be a possible hoax due to lack of established notability and English references. Do you think the person in the article holds a historical significance? RoCo^(talk) 07:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure about the subject's historical significance per se, but as a high-ranking member of the royal family, it's very likely that she will have been the subject of coverage in reliable sources, which is enough to satisfy the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, based on presumed coverage in the book mentioned above and other offline sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Changing vote to keep based on the discovery of the equivalent article at th.wiki: th:พระเจ้าบรมวงศ์เธอ พระองค์เจ้าบัญจบเบญจมา. Google translate does an incredibly poor job of translating Thai, but this is clearly the same person, and significant sources are provided at the Thai article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:Nominator withdrawal. Changing opinion after discovery of equivalent article, as stated above. Not a hoax. RoCo^(talk) 09:14, 19 January 2017 (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.