Talk:Phuket Gazette

I have a close connection to the subject of Bryce Watanasoponwong, so I am not adding any links directly. The Thaiger published an article mentioning his exhibition in October 2025 (https://thethaiger.com/guides/best-of/things-to-do/what-to-do-in-bangkok-this-weekend-october-17-to-19). Other editors may wish to consider whether including a link to his article would be appropriate here. Jordanmercer60 (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

This article was immediately recreated after Phuket_Gazette was deleted, by a single author, using a few minor sources that probably don't qualify based on the previous deletion discussion. It appears the author may have been paid to publish this based on their seniority in the Thailand Wikipedia community, since all of their other contributions were related to temples and cultural icons around Chiang Mai before their submission of The Thaiger, a news blog from Phuket. The goals for publishing this once again appear to be SEO related rather than any level of notability in the journalism world. Plmoin2514 (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Plmoin2514 Accusing me of being a paid editor without proof is completely out of line. This kind of claim is serious, and tossing it around casually is irresponsible. I’ve contributed extensively to Thailand-related articles and AfD discussions, yet you ignore that and go straight to personal attacks.

If you want to challenge my edits, do it with policy and evidence. Otherwise, stop making unfounded accusations. It’s disruptive and frankly exhausting. I really want to ask what you have helped or contributed on Wikipedia? It seems like you are jealous of something contemporary media and can't hide your behavior. Btw, I'm an orthopedic surgeon in real life and have no need to make money by writing articles on Wikipedia. Search my name on IG first and try to criticize me again. I will report you at ANI for accusing me as a paid editor without evidence. ManoiCMU (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Plmoin2514 Well, the administrator disagreed with the Speedy Deletion, so please put this to AfD. Editors will decide the notability of this media, no matter they were an SEO farm in the past… now a good and most-viewed media in Thailand. ManoiCMU (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

It's interesting that you haven't denied being paid by The Thaiger to submit that article immediately after their first article was removed for being SEO spam and lacking notable citations. It's also interesting that you claim to be an active "surgeon" but you also appear to be a retired expat living in Chiang Mai per your profile. So were you paid to submit this article or not? What is your relationship with The Thaiger that led you to immediately recreate this article right after prior first article was removed— are you claiming it was a coincidence despite the fact you have never submitted any similar articles to Wikipedia on behalf of private companies before?

If your passion for temples has shifted into a passion for newspapers, why are you focused on promoting The Thaiger vs. much more established outlets like Bangkok Post, Khaosod, or Nation Thailand?

You accuse others of personal attacks, instead of explaining why this spammy SEO article deserves to be included on Wikipedia despite previously being removed a few months ago. You also show your bias by claiming The Thaiger is "good and most-viewed media in Thailand" when in reality, they are likely the most controversial media source in Thailand as a quick Google search will show.

tl;dr the article violates WP:V and WP:NEXIST and WP:NOR the same as the first article did. Plmoin2514 (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I so pity you actually, since you have no knowledge on Wikipedia. Pls learn more from me, and to accuse others, you need much evidence. How am I related to Thaiger, as I am from CnX, and I can create whatever I want and am interested in being? You said, ‘why are you focused on promoting The Thaiger vs. much more established outlets like Bangkok Post, Khaosod, or Nation Thailand?’ Well, these media you mentioned already have articles on Wikipedia; there's no need to create them. You are attacking me without evidence, and actually COI is you, according to Draft:Andrew Drummond (journalist), your edit count is small like an ant and using fake refs, and you should create more useful articles than visa-related pages. Stop disgracing other editors; if you do more, you will close one more step to open a case at ANI. ManoiCMU (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Ignoring your personal insults, you have refused to answer if you were paid to submit this article or not. And you recreated this article only 2 weeks after the previous article was removed. You claim to be "Thai" at times, but you also claim your primary news source is The Thaiger, an English language blog known for plagiarism and promoting fake TDAC websites. Your writing style and threats against me also sound very similar to User:Greenmangopassion who has attempted to promote those very same TDAC scam websites over at Thailand Digital Arrival Card a few months back, the same websites that The Thaiger has been promoting in order to scam tourists into paying for the free arrival card. Too many coincidences imo. Plmoin2514 (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't care what your problem is. I only focus on Thai articles and there is no connection with your Thailand Digital Arrival Card articles, and I don't care. If I were connected with Thaiger, I would not add their theft of others’ content case into the article. Again, with my current level, I’m not creating article paid by Thaiger, and I don’t care about money. Check all my contributions on Wikipedia and accuse me again. ManoiCMU (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Assuming everything you are saying is true, the article still violates WP:V and WP:NEXIST and WP:NOR and is clearly not notable enough to include imo. The fact that The Thaiger is widely known to plagiarize stories, sell undisclosed SEO backlinks, and is now aggressively promoting TDAC scam websites is perhaps irrelevant here... for all your experience on this platform I'm rather surprised you disagree with this conclusion. Plmoin2514 (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because I only create notable topics on Wikipedia and none of my creations were deleted. I was not aware that the original newspaper Phuket Gazette was deleted by AfD in October, and the previous nominator tagged speedy deletion on this rebrand article by accusing me as a paid editor without evidence. I created this because I mostly used Thaiger as a reference for my articles. I also created Chiang Mai News for this reason. For notability, I'm pretty sure Phuket Gazette is notable and the previous AfD seems to be an auto vote without research in the Thai language. No matter whether the subject is Thaiger or Phuket Gazette, it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. If needed, I will open deletion review for overturning the AfD. I'm only one active Thai editor now and I need help from my senior @Paul 012: to do that. I'm not sure, but I suggest the nominator put this to AfD again. We are ready to defend this. AfD again with Thai native editors is a better solution. ManoiCMU (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Plmoin2514 has tried to delete this article many times by violating Wikipedia rules, even though the AfD outcome was very clear. This AfD result clearly found the topic to be notable, with consensus to keep Phuket Gazette. The nominator has not stopped making personal attacks against this article and other editors. The AfD was closed by an administrator, but the user has reopened the issue and challenged editors again. In my opinion, their edits are very inappropriate and show interest only in deleting this article and making personal attacks on several editors. See User talk:Plmoin2514 and AfD discussions. About 90% of their contributions appear to be uncivil. This user has not stopped attacking others, and I think previous AfD participants need to handle this user properly. I request intervention in this matter. What's wrong with this? Let me ping editors from the previous AfD and senior editors who were personally attacked by this user: @BhikhariInformer:, @Hteiktinhein:, @Kelob2678:, @4meter4:, @Lorraine Crane:, @OwenX:, @C.Fred:, @Paul 012:, @KhantWiki:. ManoiCMU (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I chose to silent and avoid arguing after making my point at AfD because this user has been aggressive, and I hoped things would settle down once the discussion closed. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The user has continued to push against the article for reasons that are unclear. The previous AfD closed as “no action,” and several editors agreed to restore Phuket Gazette, with The Thaiger kept as a subsection. No one opposed this outcome, and no one voted to delete the article.

Despite that, the user has accused Burmese editors who provided reasonable source analysis of being sock puppets for the Thai Visa Scam Centre. I honestly can’t tolerate accusations like this anymore. The article has now been tagged for deletion again, and AfD participants are once more being accused of sockpuppetry.

Looking at the AfD participants themselves, most appear to be long-standing editors who offered different but valid viewpoints. About half of the editors who supported “keep” or “restore” had previously supported a redirect in the earlier AfD and later changed their views, which is normal in discussions like this. The nominator, however, seems dissatisfied with the outcome and is attempting to reopen the issue. As Manoi explained above, their editing activity appears to be focused almost entirely on deleting this article and related visa-policy pages, with little or no contribution outside that area.

In my view, this looks like single-purpose editing rather than an attempt to reach community consensus. I don’t think further argument will be productive, and I’m not interested in continuing a back-and-forth. For that reason, I’d like to invite my respected senior @EmeraldRange: to review the situation and assess who is acting in line with Wikipedia policy and who is not. EmeraldRange has strong policy knowledge, and I hope they can give a fair, independent view on this dispute and the repeated attempts to delete an article simply because it is disliked. Cheers. KhantWiki (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

My view is that the nominator in question should assume good faith and not accuse editors of being sockpuppets or insinuating that any editor from Thailand or Myanmar must be paid off by some scam centre because of their nationality. Though we can all discuss here, the appropriate place for @ManoiCMU to bring it up if this has been a consistent issue with a particular user is at WP:ANI or WP:DISPUTE. The proper steps are to first ask @Plmoin2514 to explain why they made the uncivil comments and ask them to retract/apologise their comments. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Plus, I really don’t understand what this user wants to achieve. They have called all AfD participants "sock puppets of the Thai Visa Centre who have been trying to vandalize Wikipedia for months to get spam backlinks to their TDAC arrival card scam websites" (diff). I am surprised that this user has still not been banned, despite repeated personal attacks and countless accusations against editors who disagree with them.

This user has been accusing the editors of being sock puppets since the creation of their account (diff). I am no longer interested in this topic after the AfD reached consensus and was closed, especially since I need to focus on creating many Burmese gods articles for my project before the end of the month. I tried to ignore this behavior, but after leading Burmese editor EmeraldRange stepped in to help resolve the situation, I felt I could not simply step back.

As I have said previously, judgments should be made based on sources, not on articles or users. I believe this article needs to be monitored for a period of time, as the vandalism attempts have not stopped even though the AfD ended with no delete votes and both editors agreed to restore the former company, not Thaiger. So ...the only action I can do for this now is request an administrator apply time-limited protection to the page. Hteiktinhein (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The vast majority of these accounts are sock puppets of infamous scammer Chad Scira and Thai Visa Centre, he uses anti-detection browsers to create dozens of fake accounts across Reddit, Facebook, Tripadvisor and now Wikipedia and then uses broken English to pretend he's not a native English speaker. He works with The Thaiger to promote TDAC scam websites, and was previously arrested for drug trafficking and selling fake Thai visas to tourists in Bangkok. All of this vandalism and harassment of me is tied to him. Plmoin2514 (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Just as with the Thailand_Digital_Arrival_Card article, Chad Scira is back again trying to vandalize this article and add backlinks to The Thaiger and eventually, TDAC scam websites which appears to be his ultimate goal here. It might be a good idea to lock this article to avoid further SEO spam while deletion discussion continues, clearly none of this spam about The Thaiger is related to the radio station from the 1990s known as Phuket Gazette. Plmoin2514 (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)