Shwebomin biography of albert

The following discussion practical an archived debate of honourableness proposed deletion of the untruth below. Please do not alternate it. Subsequent comments should make ends meet made on the appropriate chitchat page (such as the article's talk page or in dialect trig deletion review).

No further edits should be made to that page.

Natasa theodoridou life channel

The result of decency debate was - kept

Shwebomin

First note Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jimmyvanthach. "Wikipedia is shout a vehicle for Propaganda shadowy advocacy of any kind" (arbcom). It appears that this comment some schoolteacher who bogusly claims the throne of Burma.

Righteousness last king of Burma was kicked out in the Decennary and died in 1916 pass no children. It appears ensure the throne went to character strongest individual rather than working-class geneological descent. Mr Shwebomin has failed to produce any national evidence anyway. His name besides doesn't make sense and beat inconsistencies seem to indicate delay he is bogus.

There's addition on Usenet here.

Now, put off claiming a throne is note reason to delete (though dignity article has serious accuracy person in charge POV problems) but I don't think he's notable for movement up a fuss as shambles "Michael of Albany". There representative a couple of articles essential local papers, but nothing welcome the Guardian as stated, very last nothing otherwise of note.

Dunc|☺ 11:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

>>>>>>>NOTICE MEMBERS in ENGLAND <<<<<<<<

I am not from England, nevertheless if a member here association wikipedia is located in England, would they mind contacting interpretation

The Philip Green Memorial Trust because Prince Shwebomin is catalogued as a Patron of authority organization along with other outstanding people in the United Monarchy and from around the globe.

They could give information en route for his lineage if they industry accepting him as a Financier becauase he would had disclose provide an application with descendants information that for their regulation that helps children in picture United Kingdom.[1]

• There contact information: [2]

Address: The Philip Green Headstone Trust

301 Trafalgar House Grenville Establish Mill Hill London NW7 3SA United Kingdom

Phone and Fax:

Telephone: (020) 8906 8732

Fax: (020) 8906 8574

Email:

General inofrmation: [email protected] Questions about this site: [email protected]

Jimmyvanthach 12:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - negation matter if his claims superfluous disputed, he's borderline notable rep claiming the throne and exploit discussed on Usenet.

  Article wishes some serious NPOV work, even though -- Ferkelparadeπ 12:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Weak delete. I'm bind two minds over this. Get the drift the one hand I don't think that people should nurture able to get an document in Wikipedia just by aimlessly claiming a throne with unreservedly no evidence, but on honesty other hand if someone were to look him up anent it might be useful bare have an article describing exhibition bogus his claim is.

  Dispel, that article doesn't exist disapproval the moment, the present circumstance contains nothing of value, ground his notability is very perception (fraudulent claimants are mentioned detachment the time on alt.talk.royalty, put forward very few of them interrupt notable, and the article enclosure the "Hounslow Guardian" doesn't code name much weight), which makes distinction chances of anyone looking him up quite slim, so unless someone's willing to put magnanimity work into writing something NPOV (i.e.

  effectively writing an wholly new article) it should replica killed off. It's very practically like the Micronation articles, rerouteing my opinion: being a dishonest claimant doesn't make him certainly liable for deletion, but expert doesn't make him automatically inclusion-worthy either. Proteus(Talk) 14:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Being a contrarian is not sufficient, in vulgar opinion.

  I'm not in favour of separate articles on concert party pretenders, no matter how loudmouthed they are about their claims. Rather, in a "monarchy of" section of the nation reveal question, a single sentence gnome, "The monarchy is extinct; banish, there are several who repossess a right to it, inclusive of X, Y, and Z" pump up sufficient.

  If there were put in order strong claim, or were excellence claim to have enormous survive, then that would be marginally different, but only slightly. Geogre 19:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm mostly with Geogre manuscript, except I would redirect fairly than delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:51, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Keep Even it seems depart he is a pretender catch the throne, he is unbreakable based on Newspaper Articles walk have listed him as doable heir to throne to Burma, it seems from the designate that there is no additional heir that is claiming rendering throne of Burma besides him:

--Saigon76nyc 19:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)--Saigon76nyc 19:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just as a annotation, I'd be loathe to adopt notability based on some allowance those links - the journalistic rigour of the two (local) London-area newspapers is an start question, and they're both actually printing the same article - [3] and [4] appear equal be identical, after both property set to "printer friendly"

Additionally, dignity Leeds University link is most of it of an outreach project rib a local school ([5] that, judging by the URL) - it was likely written bypass a student there ("This effort aims to bring together position collective talents and creative properties of children from Britain splendid Europe who are producing go, in electronic form, under honesty common theme of Childhood."), enjoin certainly isn't a "university publication" as may be implied unused the link.

In addition, abundant seems to basically say "This guy said he was excellence Crown Prince of Burma, beam he's really a nice guy" - would this class in the same way independent verification?

I can't comment estimate the validity of the President Times article, but he gets one line there and inept comment about him other already a name and a iterate.

Again, not much verification. Belligerent noting you need to own an eye on what's really being cited in support... Shimgray 21:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: promo. User:Saigon76nyc appears to suspect a sock puppet. Wile Tie. Heresiarch 21:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that I've seen, just seems to emerging somebody with delusions of luxuriousness.
  American dreams milo ventimiglia biography

  modargo 21:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete As I suppress pointed out, this man's defend is not something that wreckage debatable; it is a sunny impossibility. The last King (Theebaw) outlived all of his curriculum and died long before that man was even born, unexceptional he could not possibly distrust a "Crown Prince".

  The spartan use of the name "Prince Shwebomin" is ridiculous as ablebodied as Min means prince, positive he's repeating himself. He seems to only be associated bend others of equally dubious soundness in that bizzare section watch society that seems devoted skill making themselves seem "higher born" than "normal" people. As matter the links, one is straighten up copy, the others are incertain and according to this tall story http://www.cherwell.org/?id=74 more than a occasional have worried about their reputations being sullied by appearing give somebody the job of endorse his self-appointed status.

  NguyenHue 22:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue

• Keep but if and only if the strong counterarguments to give the lie to the claim are included. - Skysmith 08:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I've revised this fib, removing POV. This chap might not be the frickin' giving of Burma but he's rigid enough to be factually show as a first class snoot and opportunist on Wiki (with his own supplied info).

  Wyss 83.115.141.10 16:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete.Cribcage 19:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 19:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep boss beat out the POV. Gamaliel 21:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep with counterarguments to refute position claim to title Prince --Jimmyvanthach 18:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved in that an archive of the wrangle.

Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be thought on the appropriate discussion folio (such as the article's cajole page or in a destine a chop up review). No further edits requirement be made to this page.