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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lerpong Wichaikhammat

[edit]

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

Contested PROD - fails WP:BLP1E -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for serious? This "one event" is part of a continuing reign of terror imposed by a tyrannical (and unchristian, pagan) monarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.212.206 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about the King of Thailand, it is about one person who has been arrested once for one alleged crime. There is a section at Bhumibol_Adulyadej#Lèse majesté for the Thai lèse majesté issue, where this event has been covered, and I don't see how Lerpong Wichaikhammat has any individual notability outside of this one event. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than delete it outright, I suggest moving it to a new article devoted to the alleged criminals, lest they clutter the king's. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it for now, move when appropriate - Yes lets keep if for now. then move it to another article about this suppression, when made.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear that the King of Thailand did not have anyone arrested: it is already noted that HM has alluded to the alleged crime as not being a crime. Perhaps the whole of lèse majesté with respect to the kingdom should bee moved to the politics of Thailand. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One relatively minor incident does not make for notability despite the context. (We don't have an article for everybody held in Gitmo either despite the circumstances of their detention being at least as controversial). Content can be merged as appropriate. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E. There is sufficient coverage of the event in lèse majesté. Location (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also vote for deletion. The material, if need be, can be edited and added to the existing lese majeste article. There is also a First Amendment violation question here and I encourage others to explore this aspect of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank G Anderson (talk • contribs) 6 June 2011 Note: preceding comment moved here from talk page of this AfD in accordance with AGF. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:13, 6 June 2011 (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.