Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May Tha Hla

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May Tha Hla[edit]

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

Another case of someone who became notable because she was put on the BBC 100 Women list. No coverage of her outside of the brief coverage of being on that list. The other references presented are connected to her website. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The BBC honor is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: The above !vote was typed in and saved only a 1 minute after the user's previous !vote in another deletion debate.--Oakshade (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Extensive coverage on the BBC Radio program Outlook and the Huffington Post as well as the BBC honor. [1][2] --Oakshade (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would be within the BBC sourcing as they were the company that produced the special interest story of the person in order to make them notable and place in the 100 Women: the special was released in 2013 and she was on the list for 2013. The Huffpost article is also UK-based, but not immediately tied directly to BBC's research. Huffpost also covered her work in 2014 in which she was also placed in 100 Women in 2014. This should be added to the article as part of the WP:HEYMANN as the description as it currently is does not even have these references to justify its notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a confirmation that this topic passes WP:GNG. The BBC is a reliable source that's independent of the topic and that coverage is in-depth. If the person wasn't notable, the BBC wouldn't have done a story on them. You seem to have the concept of notability backwards. The topic is considered notable if a reliable source gives in-depth coverage to them, not the other way around. As for HEYMANN, WP:GNG makes it explicitly clear notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. --Oakshade (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that BBC Outlook vs. BBC 100 Women shouldn't be counted as two separate sources, given the timing of the publication of the video and the list. It's also a case where the Outlook is but a segment of the program, not the full video. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC) updated 08:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG makes no discrimination of in-depth coverage that comes from a "segment" of a work from an independent reliable source. If 60 Minutes did an in-depth piece on a person, there would be no negation of in-depth coverage simply because it was a "segment." --Oakshade (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The BBC 100 Women list is populated with relevant women chosen by the BBC. If this person is important enough for the BBC to feature her several times on their national state-sponsored platform, then she should be important enough to be written about on Wikipedia. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the BBC 100 Women list is not enough to be notable. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#BBC_100_Women discussion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is about someone else, who was only featured once. There was no binding judgment, just a few people makes vague comments about how just being on the list is a WP:BLP1E issue of some sort. Now this person is different because she was on other BBC programs, not just featured on the list, she was even featured on the world service. She is talked about in the huffington post. Also on various charity sites [3] that are unlikely to count. She was on two BBC 100 women lists, at least according to the article. I think all of this should be considered separately from the decision made by you and the policy department on that other person. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the discussion is about whether being on BBC 100 Women and having related articles around that event is enough to show notability. At this point only the Huffington Post article is counting as the second of multiple sources independent of the subject. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My logic is that two is multiple^[4], so if all the 6 or 7 BBC sources are one, and the Huffington Post article is the other, then that is enough for the requirement of multiple sources. And this should be acceptable because the BBC is very important and reliable. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Question is whether articles from these two major sources are good enough to establish notability for the person, or whether others are still needed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'comment I was asllked by AngusWOOF to comment on the HP. (I may give a !vote later). I think the curent consensus is consider the Huffington Post worthless for notability, because it has no editorial controls and deliberaately lets the contributors print what they like -- that policy is their major innovation & what makes it interesting to read, a sort of cross between a blog and a newspaper; it therefore doesn't matter how many times it refers to something. Number of times mentioned wouldn't be a factor in any case, as we do not decide notability just by counting references, but by assessing them. And I'm really suprised at saying the BBC1000 deserves special credit as a government-related source. There's no such policy, and in general I'd say that state-sponsored media might even be less trustworthy than independent ones. The BBC is indeed a special case of long time reliability in its news coverage, but I don't think its opinion in making a list of that sort should have special cosnideration. It's time we stopped using such list placement as evidence of anything at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. on the basis of my comment above: looking at history of this and related articles, the entire basis of this is the attempt to use the list for notability and to write articles on everyone included. This is mistaking publicity for encyclopedic notability , DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned on the WT:WIR discussion page. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Also note that she does not have an entry in Burmese Wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be astounding if she did, with their 81 users and the tiny collection of articles they have, barely 0.5% of what we have here. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tend to prefer not to delete articles in general, but cannot the article be improved? it basically amount to two sentences, I'm sure that, with a little effort, info about education, family background and so on can be found, cannot be? It would help people deciding on the keep. I tend not to write on living person, otherwise I would do it. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa.rolle Yes, see WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2018 (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.