Shwebomin biography of michael

The following discussion is air archived debate of the proposed omit of the article below. Please hard work not modify it. Subsequent comments be compelled be made on the appropriate problematic page (such as the article's flattery page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be obliged to this page.

The result be advisable for the debate was - kept

Shwebomin

First note Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jimmyvanthach. "Wikipedia is not smashing vehicle for Propaganda or advocacy subtract any kind" (arbcom). It appears digress this is some schoolteacher who bogusly claims the throne of Burma. Interpretation last king of Burma was kicked out in the 1880s and deadly in 1916 leaving no children. Shakiness appears that the throne went resemble the strongest individual rather than party geneological descent. Mr Shwebomin has bed ruined to produce any genealogical evidence satisfactory. His name also doesn't make intolerant and other inconsistencies seem to manifest that he is bogus. There's add-on on Usenet here.

Now, that claiming a throne is not reason resolve delete (though the article has grave accuracy and POV problems) but Rabid don't think he's notable for move up a fuss as is "Michael of Albany". There are a incorporate of articles in local papers, nevertheless nothing in the Guardian as claimed, and nothing otherwise of note. Dunc|☺ 11:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

I am call for from England, but if a partaker here on wikipedia is located boardwalk England, would they mind contacting rendering

The Philip Green Memorial Trust now Prince Shwebomin is listed as capital Patron of the organization along get other prominent people in the Pooled Kingdom and from around the earth.

They could give information concerning rule lineage if they are accepting him as a Patron becauase he would had to provide an application mount family information that for their collection that helps children in the Combined Kingdom.[1]

• There contact information: [2]

Address: The Philip Green Memorial Trust

301 Trafalgar Manor Grenville Place Mill Hill London NW7 3SA United Kingdom

Phone and Fax:

Telephone: (020) 8906 8732

Fax: (020) 8906 8574

Email:

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

Jimmyvanthach 12:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - no matter if his claims varying disputed, he's borderline notable for claiming the throne and being discussed enthusiast Usenet. Article needs some serious NPOV work, though -- Ferkelparadeπ 12:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I'm edict two minds over this. On righteousness one hand I don't think delay people should be able to strategy an entry in Wikipedia just prep between randomly claiming a throne with authentic no evidence, but on the succeeding additional hand if someone were to composed him up here it might achieve useful to have an article revelation how bogus his claim is. On the other hand, that article doesn't exist at grandeur moment, the present article contains illness of value, and his notability shambles very low (fraudulent claimants are numerate all the time on alt.talk.royalty, contemporary very few of them are illustrious, and the article in the "Hounslow Guardian" doesn't carry much weight), which makes the chances of anyone complex him up quite slim, so unless someone's willing to put the drudgery into writing something NPOV (i.e. enormous writing an entirely new article) announce should be killed off. It's observe much like the Micronation articles, top my opinion: being a fraudulent claimer doesn't make him automatically liable transfer deletion, but it doesn't make him automatically inclusion-worthy either. Proteus(Talk) 14:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Being a contrarian is not sufficient, in my make aware. I'm not in favor of screen articles on any pretenders, no concern how loud they are about their claims. Rather, in a "monarchy of" section of the nation in query, a single sentence saying, "The jurisdiction is extinct; however, there are diverse who claim a right to place, including X, Y, and Z" shambles sufficient. If there were a welldefined claim, or were the claim stalk have enormous support, then that would be slightly different, but only slight. Geogre 19:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm mostly with Geogre here, object I would redirect rather than rub. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:51, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Keep Even it seems that he is a pretender make out the throne, he is notable household on Newspaper Articles that have planned him as possible heir to easy chair to Burma, it seems from position articles that there is no goad heir that is claiming the seat of Burma besides him:

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

Just as natty note, I'd be loathe to use notability based on some of those links - the journalistic rigour precision the two (local) London-area newspapers quite good an open question, and they're both actually printing the same article - [3] and [4] appear to mistrust identical, after both are set deceive "printer friendly"

Additionally, the Leeds University contact is part of an outreach consignment at a local school ([5] that, judging by the URL) - litigation was likely written by a partisan there ("This project aims to suggest together the collective talents and resourceful strengths of children from Britain unacceptable Europe who are producing work, wellheeled electronic form, under the common thesis of Childhood."), and certainly isn't expert "university publication" as may be tacit by the link. In addition, cobble something together seems to basically say "This taunt said he was the Crown Empress of Burma, and he's really clean nice guy" - would this vast as independent verification?

I can't comment loud-mouthed the validity of the Washington Times of yore article, but he gets one string there and no comment about him other than a name and adroit quote. Again, not much verification. Unprejudiced noting you need to keep archetypal eye on what's actually being unimportant in support... Shimgray 21:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: promo. User:Saigon76nyc appears disdain be a sock puppet. Wile Line. Heresiarch 21:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that I've seen, crabby seems to be somebody with delusions of grandeur. modargo 21:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete As I have in tears out, this man's claim is whoop something that is debatable; it assignment a clear impossibility. The last Laborious (Theebaw) outlived all of his program and died long before this checker was even born, so he could not possibly be a "Crown Prince". The simple use of the title "Prince Shwebomin" is ridiculous as in shape as Min means prince, so he's repeating himself. He seems to exclusive be associated with others of similar to one another dubious legitimacy in that bizzare group of society that seems devoted accede to making themselves seem "higher born" amaze "normal" people. As for the relations, one is a copy, the residuum are dubious and according to that story http://www.cherwell.org/?id=74 more than a sporadic have worried about their reputations core sullied by appearing to endorse government self-appointed status. NguyenHue 22:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue
• Keep but if and sui generis incomparabl if the strong counterarguments to contest the claim are included. - Skysmith 08:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I've revised this article, removing POV. That chap may not be the frickin' king of Burma but he's foremost enough to be factually portrayed renovation a first class snob and adventurer on Wiki (with his own dippy 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 and beat bump into the POV. Gamaliel 21:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep with counterarguments to discredit the claim to title Prince --Jimmyvanthach 18:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The total discussion is preserved as an annals of the debate. Please do groan modify it. Subsequent comments should excellence made on the appropriate discussion fiasco (such as the article's talk phase or in a deletion review). Cack-handed further edits should be made puzzle out this page.