This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Khin Thiri Thet Mon is within the scope of WikiProject Myanmar, a project to improve all Myanmar related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Wikipedia aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Myanmar-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.MyanmarWikipedia:WikiProject MyanmarTemplate:WikiProject MyanmarMyanmar articles
LoL? CEO and founder of the country's largest entertainment company, see WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Passes WP:GNG as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Please kindly nominate for deletion if you disagree. Thanks `Phoela14 (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this article mentioned at wp:ANI, where brief discussion (meaning Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Notabality of Khin Thiri Thet Mon, not some further other discussion going off-topic there I think) was closed with note that is not the right forum to discuss article notability. The right forum is here, I believe. Article creator Phoela14 was willing to allow this to be redirected, redirected this themself, to allow discussion first, but this is where the discussion should happen (or else where?), so I un-redirected it, restored the content. It is best to keep discussion with the article, IMO, so that even if it is redirected in the end, the discussion of notability will survive for future editors to find, if/when someone seeks to restore the article. Others, please allow some development of the article to proceed. To the article creator, please do develop including by adding sources to the article, and/or adding sources here for others to consider. If article is not developed fairly promptly (or if the topic's notability is not well defended here), then it would be okay/expected for someone to open an Articles For Deletion (wp:AFD) process, in which case discussion would/should move to the AFD discussion. Just trying to help, process-wise. --Doncram (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thank you, but my English is not good so i cant expand very well. I've expanded the articles with machine translation. However Our respected editor User:Hintha can. Phoela14 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, thanks. Phoela14, perhaps it is best you help develop this one, allow for this to be resolved, before opening more other similar articles, which might all be questioned. --Doncram (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, this article has a long history today and has been subject in ANI, best IMHO to wait for administrative intervention. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, CommanderWaterford, thanks. I think there is no further discussion going on anywhere, and no administrative action pending. This Talk page is the place where any administrator(s) or concerned others can weigh in. I don't see what "intervention" is appropriate, besides polite discussion here of the notability of the topic (which will NOT be discussed at wp:ANI), but if others think an "intervention" is needed, here is where their intentions should be explained. --Doncram (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, feel free, I spend by far too much time on this topic today anyway. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope notability can be discussed here. Honestly, though, I am not immediately finding English-language sources to develop much about her. In a separate biographical article, a reader would expect biographical information such as date of birth and more. Hopefully User:Hintha and/or others might have access to more useful sources in English or in Tibeto-Burman languages. --Doncram (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly still do not see general notability, the sources are barely reliable (IMO it should be tagged at least unreliable sources for now) and someone should take this to AfD tomorrow if there is no substantial extension. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram The AFD was closed per my request because the creator agreed to redirect it. Which is what it should remain as. Otherwise, I will start a new AFD. CUPIDICAE💕 22:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are not prevented from opening another AFD, but process-wise, what happened appears to me to have taken advantage of the goodwill of a not-very-experienced editor, or at least that it was confusing/unhelpful to them. They apparently thought that if they agreed to (your demand?) to "redirect", there would still be discussion happening somewhere, about the notability of the topic. But the Talk page of the article and/or AFD are where that can happen, and there will be no discussion at all if there is not an article to discuss.
Anyhow, it has been suggested that Hintha might help develop the article, and there has been some movement already (my editing). Although I have here stated i am not completely happy with the sources I have found easily, I do think it is possible/likely that more can be found and there can be more development. So I don't see how it is helpful to open a new AFD right now, demanding more more more more attention right now right now right now from Wikipedia editors. I suggest giving it a week at least, say. YMMV. --Doncram (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, sorry but I disagree - the subject of the article has clearly absolutely no notability and especially given the current circumstances in Myanmar an AfD cannot wait one week. All other Contribs of this Editor are pointing somehow into the same direction, to use WK for political motivated reasons. Furthermore - but this does not play into role - I do not believe that the Editor is unexperienced, total in contrary - for someone with <100 Edits he/she seem to be pretty firm in WK Policies. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on source, MyanmarNow is considered the most reliable media of the country. If you don't believe me, you can ask any Burmese speaking editors. Thanks 103.138.252.8 (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see a negative tag about sources was added by User:CommanderWaterford to the article, which seems not justified by any discussion here. No information in the article is disputed, is it? It seems to me that The Irrawaddy and MyanmarNow (currently a redlink) may be fine and excellent sources for some information. If someone does have helpful perspective about MyanmarNow, towards positive development instead of just negative tearing down, please do help develop at Draft:MyanmarNow. --Doncram (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a "negative tag", it is a tag for noticing about (some) unreliable sources. *Some* of the sources (2 and 3, 4 seem to be almost the same or more or less a follow-up of 1) given are IMO far away from being reliable. They are published by Burmese exiles living in Thailand. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I undid your removal of the unreliable source Tag - before reverting again please see WP:CONTENTDISPUTE - although I guess that it will be taken to AfD tomorrow by other Editors anyhow. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be negative tag-bombing to me, for the article to be tagged with {{UnreliableSources}}) when there is no information questioned at all. To assert a source is unreliable kind of requires one to say what it is unreliable for. The sources here seem reliable (no one has questioned anything) for what they are used for here, including that the subject is the daughter. Even if the sources used so far are all published by "Burmese exiles living in Thailand" (though I note that Myanmar Now's webpage indicates it is in Myanmar by the way), so what? That is not cause to say they are unreliable for saying the daughter is the daughter.
CommanderWaterford stated they had spent enough time today on this, but they are continuing, and they admonish me in edit summary not to remove the Unreliable sources tag. Fine, I won't, I request that someone else remove it. And ask CommanderWaterford to provide any actual defense for what they are trying to say. Maybe they are in it for the duration, 24 hours.
But as negative tag-bombers often do, the tag-bombing included use of "multiple issues" overall tag, which helps achieve apparent purpose of marring the article. It makes it look as if there are at least 3, maybe more alleged issues (one being the muliplicity of issues!), when there are in fact currently only two negative issues asserted. Grouping 2 items into a bigger item which restates the two, anyhow, seems like trashing the article unnecessarily, and I am removing that at least. --Doncram (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is more than one issue, it is standard practice to place them within a 'multiple' container. Otherwise it just peppers the head of the article with multiple tag boxes which it is specifically designed to avoid. Ordinarily, I would object to an all encompassing tag without specifying what sources are questionable and why. However, in this case the tag is justified as CommanderWaterford has provided a rationale above which provides a basis for discussion and, hopefully, consensus. 109.155.148.247 (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Myanmar Now is definitely a notable news source. see the article now Taung Tan (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, Burmese editors no longer active on Wikipedia since today because the military government has plunged into a nationwide internet shutdown. So Burmese editors may cant participate in the AfD and other creations. And now starting the nationwide protest against the military government. Bye bye see you one day when down the military government in my country. #WhatishappeninginMyanmar #StopMilitarycoup #SaveMyanmar Taung Tan (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
