Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myanmar Military Engineering Corps
In this article we will explore the phenomenon of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myanmar Military Engineering Corps and its impact on contemporary society. Since its appearance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myanmar Military Engineering Corps has sparked debates, conflicting opinions and has generated deep interest in different areas. Over the years, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myanmar Military Engineering Corps has evolved and taken on new dimensions, influencing not only the way we interact with the world around us, but also our perception of reality. Through detailed analysis, we will address the various facets of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myanmar Military Engineering Corps and examine its relevance in the current context.
- 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. (non-admin closure) WinKyaw (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Myanmar Military Engineering Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find any SIGCOV in secondary RS that would establish the subject’s notability under WP:MILUNIT. Htanaungg (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Myanmar. Htanaungg (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - It is a high level land combat division with news sources about it- included in the article are coverage of the unit's history as part of the 2024 75th anniversary- some of these are direct military-affiliated news sites but not all of them are. As well as some other sources discussing their role in combat during the war. I've also added some other sources I found that discuss it to some detail in non-military affiliated sources for SIGCOV. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with EmeraldRange and per WP:HEY, as the significant of this military division is not in dispute. Hteiktinhein (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Keep (creator) Agree per @EmeraldRange and @Hteiktinhein. I don't see any reasons for it not being notable. It is a high-ranking and well-known combat engineering division of the Myanmar Army (Tatmadaw) with the sources certainly passing WP:SIGCOV, it is notable per WP:GNG, thanks to Ko EmeraldRange's help, the article could further pass WP:SIGCOV with no problems whatsoever. Their notability, verifiability and credibility already passes the threshold for their involvement in the 2025 Myanmar earthquake in which they directly lead humanitarian operations, hence getting a significant amount of coverage and news media attention and not just in passing mentions. KhantWiki (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- @KhantWiki: I would not oppose any statements related to its notability if there is SIGCOV in reliable sources and it is cited properly. But just a friendly reminder: notability is not inherited just because its parent organisation is notable, and it is also not guaranteed just because it was involved in a significant event. Htanaungg (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is not guaranteed auto notable for its involvement in a significant event, sources are what speaks for the article's notability and verifiability. Just as Ko @EmeraldRange has stated above, it is a high-level land Myanmar military combat division with many new sources about it, not just primary, pass mentions of it. Like stated above by the user, the unit's history as part of the 2024 75th anniversary is indeed notable, signifying that it is a well-recognized engineering corps team of the Myanmar Army, some parts of the article may make you believe that it is not notable, what surpasses it will be WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, WP:Verifiability, Ko @EmeraldRange have added multiple paragraphs and reliable sources that the article needs for reliability and notability. If it significantly improved (especially after Ko EmeraldRange have improved it) and meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, the article meets the criteria for AfC. KhantWiki (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pls don't copy and paste too complicated, hard-to-understand machine-made English, no oppose just for your own sake ;). Htanaungg (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Please don’t frame my comments or edits as some kind of special endorsement. My involvement is not proof of notability. To be clear, this article had major issues that I felt a need to fix and I’ve already addressed this on your talk page- you did not read sources closely (or at all) and misattributed content. It should not be the other WP:MYANMAR editors' job to clean up after you. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 02:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's not machine made English and I have written this in on my own words, to be fair, this time on this specific article, after reading your message I did read the sources closely now, they do support the article's content and paragraph, the article could pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG with significant coverage and news media attention. I get that it's frustrating to clean-up, but you're especially doing the good work by doing it for Wikipedia and for the community, even for me, as a Burmese editor, to learn from those mistakes and improve forward. 1. I learned that you have to read the sources before you implement them and 2. You have to make sure the article is neutral, notable, encyclopedic and meets Wikipedia standards. That's overall the key to achieving reliability in Wikipedia. KhantWiki (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment @EmeraldRange For example, here is it, The Myanmar Military Engineering Corps (Burmese: စစ်အင်ဂျင်နီယာတပ်ဖွဲ့) is the engineering branch of the Tatmadaw, the armed forces of Myanmar. The corps provides combat engineering support, infrastructure development, disaster relief and humanitarian aid operations. with the citation title being "Develop engineering profession for serving the State and the people" and the citation actually is discussing the paragraph supported by it.
- KhantWiki (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- You initially called it တပ်မတော်စစ်ဆင်ရေးအေဂျင်နီယာဌာနာ (a nonsense direct translation) not စစ်အင်ဂျင်နီယာတပ်ဖွဲ့ ... The issue of this article's notability and your repeated lack of reading sources are separate. This conversation does not belong here- but if you read my comment to your talk page here, the issue was you were citing articles about the Vietnamese or Thai engineering corps and using the History sources in your structure section and the structure sources in your history section to support vague statements. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's not machine made English and I have written this in on my own words, to be fair, this time on this specific article, after reading your message I did read the sources closely now, they do support the article's content and paragraph, the article could pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG with significant coverage and news media attention. I get that it's frustrating to clean-up, but you're especially doing the good work by doing it for Wikipedia and for the community, even for me, as a Burmese editor, to learn from those mistakes and improve forward. 1. I learned that you have to read the sources before you implement them and 2. You have to make sure the article is neutral, notable, encyclopedic and meets Wikipedia standards. That's overall the key to achieving reliability in Wikipedia. KhantWiki (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is not guaranteed auto notable for its involvement in a significant event, sources are what speaks for the article's notability and verifiability. Just as Ko @EmeraldRange has stated above, it is a high-level land Myanmar military combat division with many new sources about it, not just primary, pass mentions of it. Like stated above by the user, the unit's history as part of the 2024 75th anniversary is indeed notable, signifying that it is a well-recognized engineering corps team of the Myanmar Army, some parts of the article may make you believe that it is not notable, what surpasses it will be WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, WP:Verifiability, Ko @EmeraldRange have added multiple paragraphs and reliable sources that the article needs for reliability and notability. If it significantly improved (especially after Ko EmeraldRange have improved it) and meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, the article meets the criteria for AfC. KhantWiki (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- @KhantWiki: I would not oppose any statements related to its notability if there is SIGCOV in reliable sources and it is cited properly. But just a friendly reminder: notability is not inherited just because its parent organisation is notable, and it is also not guaranteed just because it was involved in a significant event. Htanaungg (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: I can't really get on board with this nomination. While I get the concern about source quality, the article actually cites Maung Aung Myoe's Building the Tatmadaw, which is a reliable academic book published by ISEAS that likely provides the significant coverage we're looking for. There's also an ANU working paper cited that backs up the technical history. It turns out that major branches of a national army usually have enough written about them in specialized military literature to meet the guidelines. I'd say we should stick with it and focus on digging up more of those offline academic sources to shore up the referencing. Jībanmṛtamessage 05:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
:*Keep Agree per @Jībanmṛta for his good research skills on the topic, I believe that the nominator may have concerns only for the sources used, that can be improved in less than no time, Maung Aung Myoe's Building the Tatmadaw is a reliable academic book published by the well-known and credible ISEAS. Another credible and independent reliable academic book source here, "How the Tatmadaw Talks: The Burmese Army's Radio Station". Strategic & Defence Studies Centre Working Paper (388). Canberra: Australian National University. 2004." Both are extremely reliable, credible, independent academic book sources of the topic with significant coverage. If we can dig along and find more academic sources, the article will be back to the AfC. These two sources only however justifies the article's notability and verifiability.
KhantWiki (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)- @KhantWiki Please stop framing or following others’ comments by unnecessarily expanding the discussion. That makes other editors unable to tolerate it. You can’t vote twice at AfD. Please keep quiet and refrain from over-commenting in a machine-style manner. I would like to advise you that keeping quiet is better, and over-commenting does not make one look smart. Hteiktinhein (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2025 (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.