Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by EmeraldRange was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Only 3 sources mention MNJTP - two Irrawaddy articles mention briefly and official statement is not independent. You must have sources that talk at length about the MNJTP and not just about MNDAA. MNJTP isn't notable just because MNDAA is notable.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Hi @EmeraldRange, thank you very much for taking the time to review this draft. I edited it to remove the Burma-Link article, which indeed didn't comply to the rule of independence. After conducting some research, it appears that the MNTJP in itself has never been extensively discussed in any news article or academic paper, since it is always conflated with the MNDAA. But I don't think that this conflation prohibits the creation of a separate page, since the MNTJP is the political structure that encompases the MNDAA and manages civil activities and therefore fulfils relatively distinct missions (for example, if I'm not mistaken, peace negociations with the central government seem to be carried out more by the MNTJP than by the MNDAA per se). This distinction if of course somewhat artificial given how deeply the two structures are intertwined but it seems quite reasonable to quite that the MNTJP will gain in importance now that it controls territory and must administer it. What's more, this blur between "armed wing"/"political wing" is pretty common within armed groups in the area and it didn't hindered the creation of separate pages for the Palaung State Liberation Front or the United Wa State Party (or the even the United League of Arakan), although these pages only document their respective armed branches. But I can fully understand if, for reasons of parsimony, the creation of the article is considered superfluous, and I wouldn't want to give the impression that I'm defending this creation at all costs. Perhaps, in the end, it would be better to consider grouping the different branches of these groups altogether on a single page. Khiêm1 (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Khiêm1, the Burma-Link article is fine to include. Having sources that are connected are fine as long as they are being cited appropriately and you think about the bias they may have. I mention that because Wikipedia's notability guidelines require at least one independent in-depth coverage of the topic of page and your draft had only one non-independent in-depth coverage.
Just because the MNTJP is a separate entity (which I don't dispute) doesn't mean it's worth making its own page when it could be a section or even a sentence in the MNDAA page- which is what is currently there. If you believe they will become more independent and important then this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON- until news and papers talk about MNJTP government it's not notable enough for Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
In your examples, PSLF is certainly an article that, in its current state, can be deleted. You can nominate it for deletion or attempt to improve it. UWSP and ULA articles have at least some articles that talk about the political party's leadership or statements. In your draft, most of your sources failed to even mention the phrase "Myanmar National Truth and Justice Party" or even "Truth". Personally I think all the EAOs having a political wing was something that became fashionable in the 60s because of the formation of the KNLA and often the two are really the same but only different on paper. That is, of course, my original research though. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback, I'm still new to this community but I'm happy to learn more every day. And yes I totally agree with your analysis and suggestions, I'll probably look into the TNLA article when I have a bit of free time. I look forward to discussing another article if the opportunity arises.
Hello, Khiêm1!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
