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. As advertisements. Sandstein 12:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khon Kaen MICE Tourism and related articles

[edit]

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

Let me restate, and expand on, what Andyjsmith wrote elsewhere. These articles (written by the author of other poor articles such as our now-deleted "Sanjana Sanghi" article) are nothing but thinly disguised advertisements. These articles were written to encourage the meetings, incentives, conferencing, exhibitions (MICE) industry to plan events in these five respective cities in Thailand. It seems to me that these five unbalanced articles all fail WP:NOTFORPROMOTION and WP:NPOV and so should be deleted. —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per nome. Fails what wikipedia is not guidelines and criteria. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The articles are badly sourced, have no encyclopedic value and are merely promotional. andy (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Blatant spamming. Creator also pastes large chunks of MICE spam into existing Thailand articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I am the creator of the pages and I would like to mention here a few points about why they should not be deleted:

pages represent facts about one of the major industry in Thailand which contributes 10% of total gdp (tourism).
largest source of income in some provinces like Pattaya and Phuket.
Have significant citations in different public forums.
Recognized by corresponding province administrations.
The reason for which pages were nominated for deletion was suspicion of paid editing over me. Like I have already mentioned here, I happen to know about the industry due to my work with it for a short term.

Although I believe some content of the page might appear to be advertised and doesn't meet wikipedia guidelines which I am also in favour of deletion, but removal of whole page due to it should not be done as wikipedia's ultimate aim to enhance knowledge and provide reliable information.

Mr RD (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr RD. I am the nominator. Why do you think I suspect you of paid editing? Our NPOV policy is binding upon all editors, even though they are unpaid. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Unforgettableid, I thought of you suspecting me of paid editing as you proposed most of my created pages for deletion. As per NPOV policy is concerned, it allows representing as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All the statements in the page I have mentioned are with proper citations. If you feel any statement as biased, you could have edited or deleted the same. Regards Mr RD (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2013 (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.