Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aung Soe Min


 * 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. Problems with promotionalism can be addressed while this is mainspace, for example by WP:STUBIFYing until someone has time to rewrite the promotional parts.  So Why  14:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Aung Soe Min

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Owner of a gallery doesn't seem to be satisfy Notability (people). Sources do not indicate that he is a notable activist or notable poet. Draft:Aung Soe Min submission declined on 5 September 2016. Phyo WP (message)  15:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: This person most definitely satisfies the criteria for "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded” as historical significance is both quoted and sourced from multiple different articles. As a WP:ARTIST. WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE he satisfies criteria 1.”The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors”. Most of the references and citations clarify this in depth. Furthermore, he is cited in “multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject”, satisfying therefore both Basic and Additional criteria of the Wikipedia:General notability guideline. Draft:Aung Soe Min submission declined on 5 September 2016. Domslice  (message)  23:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)



Furthermore, have added several academic, renown local (Irawaddy, Myanmar Times, Frontier Myanmar) and famous international journalistic sources (National Georgraphic, Nikkei Asian Review, BBC)

Alongside pre existing sources from reputable publications such as the Myanmar Times, Guardian, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (dw).

Legibility and clarity of article have also been ammended.

'Domslice (message)  01:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Aung Soe Min submission declined on 5 September 2016.
 * @ Article creator, Negative, the sources fail to satisfy Notability (people). According to given references, he is not notable artist, author, or activist. Most of the sources only indicate that he is an owner of a (marginally notable) gallery, and a gentle and kind man. Some sources just mention it in passing. Citation overkill to sources containing mere passing mentions of the topic is not added up notability. Phyo WP (message)  12:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". A few examples of independent, reliable sources which have given significant coverage:
 * – the BBC is a reliable source and is independent of the subject; the first half of this article is all about Aung Soe Min, which amounts to significant coverage
 * – The Guardian newspaper is a reliable independent source and the significant coverage includes what he is doing and a direct quotation of what he said.
 * – another quotation from The Guardian, in which the whole of paragraph 6 is about Aung Soe Min
 * These are just three examples showing that the subject of this article satisfies the General Notability Guideline and the article should not be deleted. — Hebrides (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * @, in this case, we are discussing about notability of a person as an artist, poet or activist, etc., not about his gallery.
 * BBC News: the first one-third (not half) is about his gallery and politics of the country, excluding his narratives. Please take a deep look to the article. It shows that the gallery may be (marginally) notable, but not himself. This article does not support that he is a notable artist or activist.
 * The Guardian: only support that he is an owner of a gallery, not as an artist or poet. Please take second look to the articles. There are many names (interviews) in the articles including Aung Soe Min.
 * IMO, it is difficult to say that the article (not his gallery) has received significant coverage. In this BBC & Guardian articles, journalists interviewed many people, including Aung Soe Min. These references do not adequately show the subject's notability although BBC and The Guardians are reliable sources. The article is not an improvement compared to declined submission Draft:Aung Soe Min. Thank you. Phyo WP (message)  12:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * @ & supporting ::@


 * Source 1. Thukuma: "he has for many years been a leading figure in Myanmar’s contemporary art world." Directly supports that he is a notable artist.
 * 'Source 4, Future Cities: "The book-binder’s became a meeting place for dissidents in his village. At night, they read the books they bound during the day, then discussed human rights and politics. From the shop, pamphlets and manifestos were sent out expressing support for Aung San Suu Kyi’s opposition party. When the secret service again arrived to arrest him, his answer was always the same. ‘We want education and the freedom to express ourselves"
 * 'Source 7, Myanmar Times:"Magazine editor and film director U Aung Soe Min decided a way had to be found to help local artists recover and flourish again. He bought and curated as many works, especially paintings, as he could.He has been publishing Pansodan Art and Culture weekly since 2013, but is now re-launching it as a quarterly magazine. “It’s all about building an art culture for our future, for new generations. It’s not just about money,” he said."
 * 'Source 8, The Gakushin Journal of International Studies: "His purpose is not only to sell paintings, but to awaken the Burmese people’s interest in the arts" (p 63)
 * 'Source 10 Irawaddy. Your criticism of him only being discussed as a "gentle and kind man" seems both highly selective and biased. The last line in the article explicitly highlights his role as an important cultural figure and promotor of Burmese cultural and artistic life. Quote: "Faced with the neglect of the government, the conservation of the visual legacy of the country, as well as the promotion of the Burmese cultural and artistic life, depends almost exclusively on the enthusiastic work of people like Aung Soe Min."


 * 'Source 15, The Kite tales:"Aung Soe Min breathed life into Myanmar’s contemporary arts scene when censorship was at its height and mentored a new generation of creative talent. He was regularly hauled in by the authorities for questioning over his work, particularly as the junta launch sweeping crackdowns on expression following the 1988 mass uprising against the government, although he managed to escape prison.Now he is on a one-man mission to awaken an interest in arts and history that was deadened ding decades of military rule, when soldiers trained their guns on the history books and museums echoed with the self-justifying shouts of propaganda."


 * These sources directly supports that he was a 'cultural activist', as the article does not ever use the word activist, saying that he uses "artistic advocacy and attempts to fight against censorship and freedom of expression" and pro-democracy movement in Burma through his engagement with the arts. This is thoroughly supported by NY article, futurecities, and most of the other articles, and your distinction that the articles primarily refer to the gallery and not Aung Soe Min is an artificial one, as he is the founder and organises the cultural acticities these articles are discussing as being important to the arts scene in Myanmar. The very title of the MM Times article (source 20) answers your criticism of him as lacking notabilty as an activist "Art association to encourage free expression"
 * In reply, IMO, previously declined submission was wrongly declined. Sources already demonstrated extensive notability and @ seems to ignore that notability in the art world includes contribution to fostering creative spaces, events and encouraging artistic expression, of which most of the sources highlight (other sources with passing mention are used to support other elements of the article, not merely notability).

Draft:Aung Soe Min. Thanks. Domslice (message)  18:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But, it still fails Notability (people). Let others decide. I don't think wrongly declined Draft:Aung Soe Min. Did you create the page Draft:Aung Soe Min? Phyo WP  (message)  18:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Feel the sources speak for themselves on the notability front.... And no, didn't create the Draft:Aung Soe Min declined in 2014. Thanks, Domslice (message) 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Phyo WP, for your efforts to ensure that articles satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. We need people like you to ensure that Wikipedia does not become a platform for self-promotion or puffery. However, I disagree with your interpretation of the notability criteria in this case. Consider, for example, the BBC article we were discussing with regard to the general notability guideline. You claim that the subject of this source is the gallery, not Aung Soe Min. However, WP:GNG clearly states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I do not regard the BBC article as a "trivial mention" of the man, and the question as to whether he is the main topic of the article is not a WP criterion. (Incidentally, I also think that trying to draw a distinction between a person and their work is also questionable – to imply that what they have created may be notable, but the person who created it is not.) The abundance of other sources quoted above that are more than a "trivial mention" lead me to the conclusion that, despite the points you make in your reply, I maintain my original conclusion of "Strong Keep". I should add that I have no connection with Aung Soe Min, the Pansodan Gallery, or anyone else associated with this article. I simply stumbled across it when tidying up new articles. — Hebrides (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: re 's reply to my "Strong Keep" above:

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong, strong draftify: shouldn't be deleted, passes WP:ANYBIO but its promotionalism but should not be kept in the mainspace due to its blatant promotionalism.   Dr Strauss   talk   09:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.