Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mya Thwe Thwe Khine


 * 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)

Mya Thwe Thwe Khine

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Obvious case of WP:BLP1E, had been DEPRODed w/o explanation. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC) ≥ Addition: Overseen Case of CSD G4 - subject of this article existed before and was merged after huge consensus into 2021 Myanmar Protests - see. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * Andrew is an experienced editor, It's like you teaching Abcd to Professor ! 🤔 Taung Tan (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.  Angry Harpy   talk 17:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the comment, it has been already reported. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , fyi: The Editor Taung Tan had been blocked for repeated violations of WP:NPA. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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.  Angry Harpy   talk 17:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * 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.  Angry Harpy   talk 18:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , she has not been the first but anyway. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * May i ask you? are you User:SSH remoteserver?, I think you are a SOCK because your account created recently and have full knowledge of Wikipedia more than me. I know you are a Burmese and understand Burmese language. The military junta banned Wikipedia in Myanmar. So internal Bumese editor cant edit Wikipedia without the IP block exempt. So Only Burmese from other countries can edit. SSH is one of them. PS, SSH also participated in the merge discussion of Talk:Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing. Taung Tan (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ဘယ်သူမှန်းတော့ သေချာမသိပေမဲ့, လူမျိုးရေးခွဲခြားတတ်တဲ့ သူလို့ထင်ပါတယ်, Wikiမှာ ဘာမှ မဖန်တီးတဲ့အပြင် သူများဖန်တီးပီးသားဟာတွေကို ဆားဝင်ဖြူးတယ်, ဖျက်ဖို့လုပ်တယ် မြန်မာလူမျိူးဆို အားနာစိတ်ရှိသင့်တယ်, တခြား နိုင်ငံက editorတွေအကုန် မဖျက်သင့်ကြောင်း 'ကိ' တွေကြည့် ပေးထားတာတောင် မြန်မာဖြစ်တဲ့ မင်းက SDဆိုတော့ ငါအံ့ဩလွန်းလို့ပါ, အခုမှ အကောင့်သစ်လေးဖောက်ပြီး ပြသနာရှာနေတာတော့မဟုတ်သေးဘူး, အခုခြေနေ Wikiမှာ မြန်မာ editor 3-4ယောက်ပဲရှိတာ ယူမသိဘူးလား? ငါတို့မြန်မာဆောင်းပါးတွေ လိုက်ပြသနာရှာခံရနေချိန်မှာ ငါတို့ကမရှိတဲ့ အင်အားနဲ့ မနည်းကြိုးစားကာကွယ်နေရတာ, မင်းကတော့ မကူညီတဲ့ အပြင် လိုက်ပြသနာ ရှာနေတော့ တော်တော်လေး စိတ်ညစ်ရပါတယ်, တကယ် နားမလည်နိုင်တော့ဘူး မင်းကို Taung Tan (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a sock discussion. You can open a case if you suspect me of being a sock. I edited Wikipedia long ago for years. I lost my account. That's how I know all rules. I am not going to point out my old account due to privacy. I reached this discussion via looking at your contributions, through which I saw another discussion with the same name. That explains my vote. Your personal attacks in Burmese are very much unwelcome. Halskw (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Hi bro pls check my Burmese contents and Are my Burmese words rude? tell them ! Pls dont over shame on you. Taung Tan (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop detracting from the discussion. Your first sentence is, "I don't know who you are, but I think you are a racist. Here to destory other people's articles... etc." I think further comments should be hidden. Halskw (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Broအနေနဲ့ မကူချင်နေပါ မနှောင့်ယှက်ပါနဲ့ တောင်းပန်ပါတယ်, တကယ်ပါ, အခု မြန်မာဆောင်းပါးတွေက CommanderWaterford ရဲ့ အနိုင်ကျင့်ခြင်းကိုခံနေရပါတယ်, ဘယ်လောက်တောင်ဆိုးလဲဆို အာဇာနည် Ko Htwe ကိုတောင်ဖျက်ဖို့လုပ်နေပါတယ်, ဒီလောက်ကြီးကြ မဟုတ်တော့ဘူး နားလည်းမလည်နိုင်တော့ဘူး, bro အနေနဲ့ ကူညီသင့်တယ်Taung Tan (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , you already have been blocked but for any case in the future please use English, if you have reason to suspect SPI you could raise an investigation anything else is - like always in your case - distracting from the topic. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Taung Tan had been blocked for violations ��WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Thanks for noticing what I have overseen - it is a recreation of a previous merger. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


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


 * Hello all, I and nominator CommanderWaterford have a long story. See my talk page. I copied some comments from my talk page.

""Taung Tan, I do check each and every contribution of yours like I do of many, many others editors, too. And I do it because several of the Burmese editors did add poorly or unsourced statements to their articles in order to raise some medial attention which could violate one of our five pillars - WP:NPOV, we had this discussion before. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)"."

""CommanderWaterford, I'm afraid this comment doesn't make sense to me. You said you do it because several of the Burmese editors did add poorly or unsourced statements to their articles... - that does not sound like you are talking only about tags they add to articles you write. I think at this point I'm going to ask you both to walk away from each other before things descend any further. GirthSummit (blether) 17:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)"."

""CommanderWaterford, as I said, your statement about watching each and every one of their edits is not appropriate. By all means, maintain your watchlist and continue to check that things are properly sourced, but you should not give a user the impression that you are constantly watching them - that goes against our harassment policy. GirthSummit (blether) 17:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)"." Taung Tan (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per above, he admitted to personally forcing on Burmese articles. He taken all of the newly created Burmese articles to AfD recently see Death of Kyal Sin, Win Maw Oo. Very strange, he also tried to delete Ko Htwe, Myanmar's independent leader and one of the greatest 19 July Martyrs of Burmese Martyrs' Day, with "uncontroversial deletion". En-Wiki has very few Myanmar editors (3 or 4 editors), I'm one of them. Taung Tan (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What the hell, I just found CommanderWaterford tagged on another independent leader and Union Minister Mahn Ba Khaing. What are you doing CommanderWaterford? He is clearly passes WP:NPOL. CommanderWaterford you are not normal on Burmese articles. I have nothing more to say! Pls save Burmese editors from CommanderWaterford's personal actions. See also about his negative tag-bombing at Talk:Khin Thiri Thet Mon and many other articles.  Taung Tan (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's obvious CommanderWaterford has personal and intentional over-actions on the Burmese-related articles. I was really shocked when I found his Notability tag on Burmese martyr Mahn Ba Khaing, by the way. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , please take notice of our core policies WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The other editor already had been blocked. I do not care who created an article and what they are about. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes!!!! Our respected editor and main editor of Myanmar Project User:Hintha retired because of CommanderWaterford's negative tag-bombing at every Burmese articles and injustice case. Taung Tan (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This editor had been blocked by a sysop for repeated violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Taung Tan's being blocked will have no effect on the AfD discussion and cannot hide your intentional case. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , nobody said that. Are you assuming me not WP:AGF ?! CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * *Comment  Same problem here! I'm article creator. He taken "all" my articles to AfD even they are clearly notable, and also WP:PROD for Member of Parliament Aye Myat Mon. Hay guy...What do you want ? Please be smart ! Marcus MT (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * u|CommanderWaterford has also tagged Win Ma Oo for deletion. This looks a lot like some sort of crusade.  And his comments about Burmese editors is rather disturbing.  These are articles about people in that country, I would expect that people from there would be of extremely valuable assistance translating documents and evaluating sources. Hyperion35 (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , please take notice of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The other editor already had been blocked. I do not care who created an article and you should notice that they are not "your" articles all all since this is a collaborative encyclopaedia. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "The other editor already had been blocked. I do not care who created an article and what they are about." OMG! We have been threatened! To repeat your words, take notice of WP:AGF. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with . I also checked their editing overlap and 's comments about Burmese editors is rather disturbing. CommanderWaterford should stop watching and harassing Myanmar editors, imv. VocalIndia (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * PS, If he continues to do so, please complain to WP: ANI. VocalIndia (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , please keep in mind that seeking especially in User Contributions, not assuming WP:AGF and racism could be treated like a violation of WP:HA and be seen like WP:NGA. Of course do I have lots of interactions with Burmese Editors, I do more than 1000 Edits usually every day, so of course also regarding Burmese-related articles (and Ghanaian, and American...and Ukrainian and German and many many more). CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , with all due respect, several editors have expressed concerns over specific comments that you have made. AGF does not mean that we are required to turn a blind eye if we see your own comments as possibly implying that you may have some sort of prejudice against Burmese editors, and you have said yourself that you believe that Burmese editors are making edits for political purposes.  Given that you have filed multiple AfDs within a few days on articles about Burmese civilians who were killed during protests, these questions are going to be asked.  I might politely suggest that you may not have any prejudice or animus, but perhaps you are experiencing pushback from multiple Burmese editors, not because they have a political agenda, but because they may possess a greater familiarity with the region, culture, and social context. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , please stay focused to the AfD itself and do not take it personal, please follow the WP:GD. As said before accusing someone of being acting on the grounds of racist motives is a very serious accusation that normally lead to the accusing user being blocked. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not accused you or anyone else of acting on the grounds of racist motives. I have only suggested, politely, that comments focused on the nationality of other users is not helpful.  Part of AGF is consideration of the content of editors' comments, not the editors themselves, their nationalities, or your perceptions of their political views.  I would also politely suggest that you consider how you felt when you believed that others were accusing you of racism, and consider that many other editors may have had similar unwelcome feelings in response to some of your own comments.  Hopefully that might result in more constructive and cooperating conversations for all of us.  Thanks.  Hyperion35 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * Redirect to 2021 Myanmar protests. Coming in here as courtesy-pinged by  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 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. – robertsky (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * , the sections (her death and reactions were separate) on 2021 Myanmar protests was added in by, 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)


 * 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 .  Mario Jump  83!  23:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * I agree with this.  Mario Jump  83!  02:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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 &#8239;Talk 04:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am going to move this into Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing.  Mario Jump  83!  02:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coming in here as courtesy-pinged by 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Keep per argument above is premature to delete the article with reference to the 'death of'Kaybeesquared (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)|undefined  12:02, 16 March 2021 (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.