Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tha Hla Shwe

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. Michig (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Hla Shwe[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Strong keep: (nominator) This person had held a highest-level appointed administrative post (Rector (academia)) at a major academic institution University of Medicine 2, Yangon, and served as President of country-level Red Cross organization (Myanmar Red Cross Society). The person has received considerable coverage in multiple published reliable news. IMO, there is no notability problem.

However, there is a dispute that the person is notable for a separate article, or whether the name should be a redirect to the national Red Cross society. I've disputed the change (blank-and-redirect) and an attempt was made to reach a consensus by discussing in Talk:Tha Hla Shwe and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Tha Hla Shwe. My point is the article is notable for an article and should not redirect to Myanmar Red Cross Society. But another user favours blank-and-redirect and has no intention of starting an AfD discussion. DR volunteer suggests the best way to resolve this dispute, when the redirect is being used as a back-door deletion, does appear to be a Article for Deletion discussion.

So, I've recovered the article from page history, copyedited and removed unverified information. Now, I am nominating the article for deletion in order to resolve the dispute. Phyo WP (message) 04:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets WP:NACADEMIC #3 "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" as a member of the Myanmar Academy of Medical Science, and #6 "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.". He is eligible for an article whether or not he has been president of the national Red Cross, and his notability could not be shown by inclusion in or redirection to the Red Cross article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy close~~ (changed to snow keep, for similar reasoning, strike so as not to !vote twice Polyamorph (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)) On the basis that the nominator is not proposing deletion. This "dispute" would have been far better dealt with had editors actually improved the sources on the page - rather than wasting time and effort in dispute resolution and here. This article is very poorly sourced, these must be improved to maintain wikipedia's quality standards. Polyamorph (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject of the article meets WP:NACADEMIC. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 15:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - How does User:Polyamorph propose to resolve this content dispute, if they contend that AFD is not an appropriate venue? Is a Request for Comments, which takes 30 days to run, required, or are they suggesting that the dispute be resolved by edit-warring, or are they suggesting that all disputes in which the choices are to Keep and to Redirect should always be decided in favor of Redirect? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This dispute turns on the question of whether AFD is an appropriate means of resolving a blank-and-redirect controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply as I was referred to by username. All we are saying, is ... give verifiable information from reliable sources, especially important for BLPs ... a chance. There is no dispute. I have added a template requesting more sources for this BLP, as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the matter. The burden is on those who create BLPs to add sourced information. This matter did not need dispute resolution or AfD and certainly does not warrant an RfC! Polyamorph (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (that is, do not redirect) - After reviewing the article and the arguments, I see that the individual satisfies academic notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wonder whether there may be an anti-Myanmar prejudice at work here. The country is a pariah for humanitarian reasons, but that should not reflect on one of its doctors, and we haven't even researched (and shouldn't research) his views on political controversies involving his country. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep as this isn't a deletion discussion, no one has suggested deletion. This article was redirected by multiple users due to poor sourcing. This is not "back-door" deletion as Robert McClenon seems to enjoy describing it, as the page history is preserved and can be restored at any time and expanded by anybody. No one disputes notability, the only request has been to improve sourcing. These requests have been entirely ignored in favour of making bad faith accusations against good faith editors. Robert McClenon, you work in dispute resolution but really have done a fantastic job here at stirring up dispute where there is none. For the record, there is no evidence of anti-Myanmar prejudice and the suggestion that there has been by any of the three good-standing users (Mean as custard, Onel5969, Polyamorph) that redirected this page is offensive. Polyamorph (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The statement that I have been "stirring up dispute where there is none" is seriously mistaken. There certainly is a controversy about whether Tha Hla Shwe should be a biography of a living person or a redirect. That controversy was there before I became involved, and I became involved only because a request was made to help resolve a controversy. There is and has been a dispute. There is a dispute, a blank-and-redirect dispute, and a meta-dispute, a dispute over how to resolve a dispute. (As to anti-Myanmar prejudice, I wondered whether there was a prejudice. If there isn't, that answers that question, but it doesn't make the blank-and-redirect dispute go away.) If anyone is proposing that the blank-and-redirect dispute cannot be settled at AFD because it is not a true deletion dispute, I am willing to consider a suggestion for an alternate means of resolving the dispute. Please either allow AFD to continue as a method of resolving this blank-and-redirect dispute, or propose an alternate method of resolving the blank-and-redirect dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not mistaken. You don't accuse good faith editors of racial prejudice without good reason (i.e. evidence). An retraction is required. There is no dispute, as mentioned in my comment above I tagged the article requesting more sources and that is the end of the matter. No one is advocating deletion. No one is advocating redirection. All we are advocating is to improve the sources (I've looked but can't find suitable ones, so other editors will have to do this). But AfD is not for cleanup. Polyamorph (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If no one is advocating redirection at this time, this AFD can be closed with a conclusion of Keep. This AFD was initiated because there had been revert-warring following a blank-and-redirect; if no one is advocating blank-and-redirect any more, then the dispute has been resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 14 December 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.