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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mya Thwe Thwe Khine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Obvious case of WP:BLP1E, had been DEPRODed w/o explanation. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

≥ Addition: Overseen Case of CSD G4 - subject of this article existed before and was merged after huge consensus into 2021 Myanmar Protests - see [1]. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as the nomination is nonsensical. BLP1E is obviously about biographies of living people but the subject in this case is dead. And their martyrdom has proved to be quite a big deal. Her funeral was a major occasion attended by about 100,000 people and given worldwide coverage such as Huge crowds mourn woman killed in protests. Her image is now widely used in protests and posters – see Woman left brain-dead after Burmese police shooting is now a protest symbol. So, the subject is quite notable and detailed coverage is appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew Davidson, please take kindly notice of WP:BLP1E: "biographies of living people, or those who have recently died" CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford May I direct your attention to the remainder of that sentence that you just quoted? "and to biographies of low-profile individuals." The point of BLP1E is for living individuals who are famous or infamous for one thing they did in their lives, who otherwise wish to fade into obscurity, it is a part of the broader BLP guidelines. The subject of this article does not strike me as being "low profile", and it is borderline-obscene to claim that the subject had no further significant actions when the subject was killed as a part of the significant act. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyperion35, as I said before - BLP1E is for people who have recently died which is the case here. BLP1E is exactly for cases like this where Burmese editors want to raise artificially attention for some kind of political activism. It is no surprise that Wikipedia gets more than often cited as biased (even from Co-founders) if we artificially generate attention for those kind of - as sadly as it is - 1E victims. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford No. BLP1E is for individuals who were otherwise unknown for a period after the event. I think that you are misreading or misunderstanding this. Consider WP:NOTBLP1E, while this is an unofficial essay,I believe that the author does a better job of describing the point that I am trying to make better than I can. And as I said, it is borderline-obscene to apply the "recently died" criteria when the even itself is the reason why the individual recently died. I would also advise you that speculation as to the motives or political views of other editors is not appropriate or constructive. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford Andrew is an experienced editor, It's like you teaching Abcd to Professor ! 🤔 Taung Tan (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this, both in style and in content, have no place at this venue, or really anywhere on the project. All you're accomplishing here is making yourself open to attack. AngryHarpy‍^talk 17:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• AngryHarpy, thanks for the comment, it has been already reported. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• AngryHarpy, fyi: The Editor Taung Tan had been blocked for repeated violations of WP:NPA. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is about a fact with great worldwide repercussion. It's not notability for a single event, as the article refers to the event and not to the person. Meets WP:GNG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Sources are easily there for me, even excluding the ones I can't read. Seems like a somewhat ill-fated nomination, seeing how the article was drastically expanded just an hour later, but oh well, mistakes happen. AngryHarpy‍^talk 17:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • AngryHarpy, may you please be so kind to explain me what do you mean by "il-fated nomination" ? CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ill-fated as in unfortunately timed. Had the article already been in its current state when you first clicked on it, you may have had less of a reason to doubt the notability of the event. To be clear, I'm absolutely not accusing you of anything, gauging articles about (from a Western POV) fairly inaccessible topics like this can be challenging to say the least. AngryHarpy‍^talk 18:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • AngryHarpy, please ping me in the future if you want me to read your comment - the article was and is a BLP1E case and no matter how much Burmese editors do try to emotionalise this victim of a demonstration it will remain a 1E victim of a demonstration (as sadly at it is). The way like several editors here are trying to push this article is hardly compatible with our NPOV policies and as said elsewhere I am now not surprised at all that Wikipedia is getting strong accusations in the press and even from their co-founders of pushing biased political articles (like this one). CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford, How is this incompatible with NPOV? The fact that an individual was killed during a prominent protest that has gathered worldwide attention seems to be a neutral fact. I am American, I vaguely remember some facts about the Burmese government from poli sci classes from 20 years ago (so irrelevant now), and I am only vaguely aware of the protests over there at the moment, and I have no connection to any of it. It certainly seems possble to write an article about this imdividual and her death in a NPOV manner. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Please see WP:BIO1E for clarification on the proper guidelines for individuals who are deceased, BLP1E is inappropriate here. Further, there appears to be significant coverage of the subject and the subject's death. Depending on the circumstances, it may make sense in the future to rename the article to "Death of Mya Thwe Thwe Khine" depending on future events and coverage. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AfD is not cleanup but plenty of significant coverage both included in the article and per search. Best Taung Tan (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very clearly notable as the first protestor to die in a major world event. In fact, speedy keep. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambrosiawater, she has not been the first but anyway. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete WP:G4. This issue has already been decided a week ago! This is a recreation of a previously merged page. See Talk:Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing. We can't dicuss this every week. Halskw (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halskw Perhaps. I would note, however, that the reasons given for the merge, such as BLP1E, were in error. The larger article about the protests is also rather long, and involves coverage of an ongoing event. My personal preference would be to have a short summary about Mya Thwe Thwe Khine in the protest article and a link to the standalone article. I recognize that there was a previous consensus towards merge, but it appears that this article may be long enough for its own space and has been expanded. Also, there is a strange situation where the consensus now appears to be different from that consensus. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just 1E. We need to stick to something, like G4. How about someone comes over a week later and we start this mess all over again. Let's wait a few months. Halskw (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That merge discussion was invalid because it was closed by CommanderWaterford who had cast a !vote and is clearly not neutral on such topics. In any case, the outcome was not deletion and so G4 does not apply. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that G4 would also be inapplicable because this article appears to have been substantially improved and lengthened. G4 applies only to a direct recreation where there have been no changes or improvements. G4 also only appears to apply to articles that have been deleted. Any speedy deletion would be inappropriate given the discussion ongoing here. Even a decision to re-merge would imply changes since this article is now substantially different from the section in the larger article, which again precludes any sort of speedy action. Hyperion35 (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who closed the dicussion. There was an overwhemling consensus to merge. If consensus doesn't hold for a week, then how can we stop people from having a deletion dicussion next week? There is no reason to recreate the article again just after a clear consensus to merge. Let's wait a few months to see how that played out. WP:NOTNEWS. Halskw (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrew Davidson, someone accusing of a violation of WP:AGF just because he takes an Article to AfD is a serious accusation, I suggest reverting it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Andrew Davidson, the merge discussion was closed cause of a CLEAR and OBVIOUS consensus to merge and I honestly have overseen that it is the same subject. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halskw: If you reached here via looking at Taung Tan's contributions, you might also notice the problems happening to the Burmese-related articles. This is very helpless condition for us. It's okay you don't need to help us, but I apologize not to make the case worse. Thanks. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ခုရက်ပိုင်းမှာ "မစွမ်းရင်းကလဲရှိ ကန်စွန်းခင်းကလဲငြိ" ဆိုသလို Myanmar Project မှာ ရေးတဲ့သူမှ မရှိပါဘူးဆို ပြဿနာတွေက ဆူနာမီလို ဒလဟောဝင်နေပါတယ်။ စနေသက်ရောက်ဖြစ်နေသလားမသိ၊ ယတြာခြေဦးမှပါ။ Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is very notable topic. This article is about the event and not the person. The article has significant coverage and reliable source by Worldwide media to justify keeping. VocalIndia (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and the subject is actually quite notable, being the subject of worldwide coverage. The result of the merge discussion in which no Burmese editors except Taung Tan and Hintha could vote due to the nationwide internet shutdown was one sided because it was closed by CommanderWaterford who had cast a !vote. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zin Win Hlaing, the merge discussion took long enough for everyone to vote and there was a more than broad consensus to merge it. Please stay at the facts. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2021 Myanmar protests#Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing. Coming in here as courtesy-pinged by CommanderWaterford due to my comments in the previous merge discussion. On Death of Mya Thwe Thwe Khine: a comparison between Death of Mya Thwe Thwe Khine (version as of this comment's timestamp) and last version of Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing before CommanderWaterford closed the merge discussion and merged the content into 2021 Myanmar protests#Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing shows that there have been no substantial, substantiated changes or addition made to the recreated article. The only changes I can visually tell are the addition of the subject's (non-free) portrait image, the removal of the infobox, and unverified turnout number of her funeral. The non-free image contains caption implying her significance, but it is not referenced nor discussed in the content of the recreated article. Thus the result from the merge discussion remains valid and applicable on the recreated article. As such, I view that Death of Mya Thwe Thwe Khine, in its current form, should be similarly redirected to 2021 Myanmar protests#Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing. – robertsky (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robertsky One concern that I have is that there exist substantial differences between this article and the much smaller merged summary in the article on the protests. If we are to merge these articles, does that mean that we go with what we currently have in the protest article, or do we expand the information in the protest article to include this full article? If we are going to have a smaller summary of this in the protest article, that would strike me as a reason for having this article as a standalone, especially given the length of the protest article. At the same time, I do understand that this could create greater difficulties keeping the two articles consistent, especially as this references an ongoing event. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyperion35, the sections (her death and reactions were separate) on 2021 Myanmar protests was added in by CommanderWaterford, as per outcome of the merge discussion. Their additions to the protest article were largely faithful to the content on the original page. Over time, the sections were decoupled and edited, but largely intact. The decoupling may have contributed to the impression that there are substantial differences between the two articles. On this basis, one evaluation which I would take is that, if new facts (not those that were trimmed during the merge) to the protest article would lead to the article being WP:UNDUE and majorly focused on her, then a split may be warranted. A split may also be warranted if existing facts about her on the protest article are significantly reduced. However in my view, the two additions to the new article doesn't really warrant a content split. As mentioned in my comments in the merge discussion, I feel that a split would be warranted like in the case of Death of Chow Tsz-lok article, where the content in that article is significantly more than that in the parent 2019–20 Hong Kong protests article. Chow's article did go through a similarly merge discussion when it was first split out from the parent article, but was it stopped early as other editors had expanded the article significantly almost immediately. Thus, I would suggest that if interested editors want to keep this article, they should similar expand the article as much as possible. There is still time before this AfD is closed. Keeping the articles consistent shouldn't be an issue for editors who have been actively the relevant pages, as evidently from ongoing events such as COVID-19, Hong Kong protests (when it was still ongoing), etc. – robertsky (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was one of the many who supported the merger of the Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing article. I have some concerns about the article being merged at that time, however, because her death may be the only one on the protests at that time. I am now, however, want to say that this article should be kept, because of WP:BIO1E. Her death has been used by the protesters to protest the Tatmadaw regime, so I can say it deserves an article now. If this article ends up being kept, then I am ready to trim the main article to remove information that isn't really relevant to the protests. That's what I can say about this article, I don't want to participate further in this AfD because of stress. MarioJump83! 23:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and oppose redirect  2021 Myanmar protests article is now too large and death section has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article. So we need to split the article. Marcus MT (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this. MarioJump83! 02:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as death of Mya Thwe Thwe Khine (or death of Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing), the person might not be notable but the death is clearly notable enough to meet WP:GNG. Sun8908 _Talk 04:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to move this into Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing. MarioJump83! 02:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coming in here as courtesy-pinged by CommanderWaterford due to my comments in the previous merge discussion. I supported to merge back then, but after seeing the developments this article should be kept. Her funeral is attended by thousands despite crackdowns by military[1][2]. Her family is getting interviews by media [3][4]. The matter of her death is also notable as Myanmar military claims that they didn't have lethal weaponry but Mya is killed by lethal weapons.[5]. She may not be notable, but her death is notable now. SunDawn (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  : I cannot find any reason to delete it. It meets with criteria for article, and she now is known worldwide. -- Wendylove (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (per WP:SNOW, by now, although explicitly not per WP:SK); there has been an increasing amount written on the subject since the article was (perhaps prematurely) nominated. This trend is only likely to continue. Passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG easily. ——Serial 12:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per argument above is premature to delete the article with reference to the 'death of'Kaybeesquared (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I find the keep arguments best. The delete arguments are just vague. The article subject has received wide coverage, and thus a definite GNG pass. I had to revert the "undiscussed move" affecting this article. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 12:02, 16 March 2021 (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.