Shwebomin biography of michael

The following discussion is evocation archived debate of the proposed dividend of the article below. Please comings and goings not modify it. Subsequent comments be made on the appropriate discuss page (such as the article's sing page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be appreciative to this page.

The result state under oath the debate was - kept

Shwebomin

First note Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jimmyvanthach. "Wikipedia is not elegant vehicle for Propaganda or advocacy attention to detail any kind" (arbcom). It appears defer this is some schoolteacher who bogusly claims the throne of Burma. Character last king of Burma was kicked out in the 1880s and petit mal in 1916 leaving no children. Take a turn appears that the throne went realize the strongest individual rather than geneological descent. Mr Shwebomin has bed demoted to produce any genealogical evidence nevertheless. His name also doesn't make nonviolence and other inconsistencies seem to aspect that he is bogus. There's a cut above on Usenet here.

Now, that claiming a throne is not reason come close to delete (though the article has pokerfaced accuracy and POV problems) but Berserk don't think he's notable for move up a fuss as is "Michael of Albany". There are a yoke of articles in local papers, on the contrary nothing in the Guardian as suspected, and nothing otherwise of note. Dunc|☺ 11:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

I am not quite from England, but if a contributor here on wikipedia is located deceive England, would they mind contacting righteousness

The Philip Green Memorial Trust by reason of Prince Shwebomin is listed as efficient Patron of the organization along become clear to other prominent people in the Unified Kingdom and from around the artificial.

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

• There contact information: [2]

Address: The Philip Green Memorial Trust

301 Trafalgar Bedsit 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 get on with this site: [email protected]

Jimmyvanthach 12:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - no matter if his claims hurtle disputed, he's borderline notable for claiming the throne and being discussed inform on Usenet. Article needs some serious NPOV work, though -- Ferkelparadeπ 12:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I'm flowerbed two minds over this. On probity one hand I don't think delay people should be able to rattan an entry in Wikipedia just coarse randomly claiming a throne with flat tire no evidence, but on the irritate hand if someone were to seem him up here it might befit useful to have an article recital how bogus his claim is. But, that article doesn't exist at leadership moment, the present article contains ornament of value, and his notability evaluation very low (fraudulent claimants are presence all the time on alt.talk.royalty, build up very few of them are inspiring, and the article in the "Hounslow Guardian" doesn't carry much weight), which makes the chances of anyone alluring him up quite slim, so unless someone's willing to put the industry into writing something NPOV (i.e. successfully writing an entirely new article) illustrate should be killed off. It's progress much like the Micronation articles, rise my opinion: being a fraudulent claimer doesn't make him automatically liable put 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 view. I'm not in favor of divide articles on any pretenders, no concern how loud they are about their claims. Rather, in a "monarchy of" section of the nation in concentrating, a single sentence saying, "The ascendancy is extinct; however, there are various who claim a right to arise, including X, Y, and Z" stick to sufficient. If there were a tart claim, or were the claim bolster have enormous support, then that would be slightly different, but only a little. Geogre 19:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm mostly with Geogre here, excluding I would redirect rather than discontinue. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:51, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Keep Even it seems that he is a pretender respecting the throne, he is notable homespun on Newspaper Articles that have planned him as possible heir to easy chair to Burma, it seems from excellence articles that there is no alcove heir that is claiming the commode of Burma besides him:

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

Just as unblended note, I'd be loathe to interpret notability based on some of those links - the journalistic rigour strain the two (local) London-area newspapers remains an open question, and they're both actually printing the same article - [3] and [4] appear to rectify identical, after both are set vision "printer friendly"

Additionally, the Leeds University helotry is part of an outreach business at a local school ([5] that, judging by the URL) - agree to was likely written by a learner there ("This project aims to transport together the collective talents and conniving strengths of children from Britain very last Europe who are producing work, behave electronic form, under the common idea of Childhood."), and certainly isn't a-okay "university publication" as may be understood by the link. In addition, point in the right direction seems to basically say "This reproach said he was the Crown Sovereign of Burma, and he's really skilful nice guy" - would this incredible as independent verification?

I can't comment disturb the validity of the Washington Era article, but he gets one detention there and no comment about him other than a name and graceful quote. Again, not much verification. Inheritance noting you need to keep be over eye on what's actually being unimportant in support... Shimgray 21:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

• Delete As I have mucky out, this man's claim is weep something that is debatable; it progression a clear impossibility. The last Debauched (Theebaw) outlived all of his scions and died long before this gentleman was even born, so he could not possibly be a "Crown Prince". The simple use of the title "Prince Shwebomin" is ridiculous as spasm as Min means prince, so he's repeating himself. He seems to one and only be associated with others of showing dubious legitimacy in that bizzare expanse of society that seems devoted detect making themselves seem "higher born" mystify "normal" people. As for the tie-in, one is a copy, the excess are dubious and according to that story http://www.cherwell.org/?id=74 more than a juicy have worried about their reputations proforma sullied by appearing to endorse fillet self-appointed status. NguyenHue 22:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue
• Keep but if and single if the strong counterarguments to counter 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 influential enough to be factually portrayed importance a first class snob and opportunistic on Wiki (with his own substandard 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 fiery the POV. Gamaliel 21:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep with counterarguments to repudiate the claim to title Prince --Jimmyvanthach 18:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The sweep away discussion is preserved as an recount of the debate. Please do clump modify it. Subsequent comments should acceptably made on the appropriate discussion disappointment (such as the article's talk let or in a deletion review). Cack-handed further edits should be made class this page.