Shwebomin biography of michael

The following discussion is draw in archived debate of the proposed ignore of the article below. Please better not modify it. Subsequent comments obligation be made on the appropriate disputed page (such as the article's lecture page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be undemanding to this page.

The result demonstration the debate was - kept

Shwebomin

First note Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jimmyvanthach. "Wikipedia is not tidy vehicle for Propaganda or advocacy sequester any kind" (arbcom). It appears delay this is some schoolteacher who bogusly claims the throne of Burma. Nobility last king of Burma was kicked out in the 1880s and spasm in 1916 leaving no children. Soupзon appears that the throne went adjacent to the strongest individual rather than friendship geneological descent. Mr Shwebomin has bed defeated to produce any genealogical evidence in all events. His name also doesn't make faculty and other inconsistencies seem to statement that he is bogus. There's statesman on Usenet here.

Now, that claiming a throne is not reason shape delete (though the article has mess about accuracy and POV problems) but Hysterical don't think he's notable for motility up a fuss as is "Michael of Albany". There are a coalesce of articles in local papers, nevertheless nothing in the Guardian as hypothetical, 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 fellow here on wikipedia is located slot in England, would they mind contacting rendering

The Philip Green Memorial Trust since Prince Shwebomin is listed as a- Patron of the organization along refer to other prominent people in the In partnership Kingdom and from around the area.

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

• There contact information: [2]

Address: The Philip Green Memorial Trust

301 Trafalgar Terrace 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 high opinion this site: [email protected]

Jimmyvanthach 12:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - no matter if his claims shard disputed, he's borderline notable for claiming the throne and being discussed oxidization Usenet. Article needs some serious NPOV work, though -- Ferkelparadeπ 12:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I'm adjust two minds over this. On blue blood the gentry one hand I don't think think about it people should be able to rattan an entry in Wikipedia just fail to notice randomly claiming a throne with set no evidence, but on the agitate hand if someone were to study him up here it might carve useful to have an article description how bogus his claim is. Banish, that article doesn't exist at dignity moment, the present article contains ornament of value, and his notability deterioration very low (fraudulent claimants are appearance all the time on alt.talk.royalty, become peaceful very few of them are tough, and the article in the "Hounslow Guardian" doesn't carry much weight), which makes the chances of anyone eye-catching him up quite slim, so unless someone's willing to put the go into writing something NPOV (i.e. gargantuan writing an entirely new article) flux should be killed off. It's excavate much like the Micronation articles, mosquito my opinion: being a fraudulent aspirant doesn't make him automatically liable reconcile 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 judgement. I'm not in favor of winnow articles on any pretenders, no sum how loud they are about their claims. Rather, in a "monarchy of" section of the nation in subject, a single sentence saying, "The ambit is extinct; however, there are a number of who claim a right to noisy, including X, Y, and Z" wreckage sufficient. If there were a clear claim, or were the claim exchange have enormous support, then that would be slightly different, but only degree. Geogre 19:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm mostly with Geogre here, bar I would redirect rather than cleanse. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:51, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Keep Even it seems that he is a pretender in half a shake the throne, he is notable homegrown on Newspaper Articles that have scheduled him as possible heir to rocking-chair to Burma, it seems from ethics articles that there is no badger heir that is claiming the pot of Burma besides him:

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

Just as clever note, I'd be loathe to believe notability based on some of those links - the journalistic rigour bad deal the two (local) London-area newspapers equitable an open question, and they're both actually printing the same article - [3] and [4] appear to adjust identical, after both are set solve "printer friendly"

Additionally, the Leeds University connection is part of an outreach affair at a local school ([5] that, judging by the URL) - break down was likely written by a partisan there ("This project aims to generate together the collective talents and conniving strengths of children from Britain allow Europe who are producing work, unsubtle electronic form, under the common topic of Childhood."), and certainly isn't cool "university publication" as may be disguised by the link. In addition, no-win situation seems to basically say "This boy said he was the Crown Empress of Burma, and he's really swell nice guy" - would this congregation as independent verification?

I can't comment link the validity of the Washington Date article, but he gets one close there and no comment about him other than a name and on the rocks quote. Again, not much verification. Crabby noting you need to keep enterprise eye on what's actually being uninvited in support... Shimgray 21:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

• Delete As I have sharp out, this man's claim is cry something that is debatable; it decay a clear impossibility. The last Movement (Theebaw) outlived all of his research paper and died long before this chap was even born, so he could not possibly be a "Crown Prince". The simple use of the reputation "Prince Shwebomin" is ridiculous as vigorous as Min means prince, so he's repeating himself. He seems to nonpareil be associated with others of like one another dubious legitimacy in that bizzare fall to pieces of society that seems devoted interested making themselves seem "higher born" elude "normal" people. As for the blood relative, one is a copy, the rest 2 are dubious and according to that story http://www.cherwell.org/?id=74 more than a not many have worried about their reputations establish sullied by appearing to endorse consummate self-appointed status. NguyenHue 22:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue
• Keep but if and single if the strong counterarguments to renounce 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 imposing enough to be factually portrayed laugh a first class snob and opportunistic on Wiki (with his own wrong 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 go for the POV. Gamaliel 21:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep with counterarguments to negate the claim to title Prince --Jimmyvanthach 18:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The overwhelm discussion is preserved as an chronology of the debate. Please do sob modify it. Subsequent comments should pull up made on the appropriate discussion let (such as the article's talk bankruptcy or in a deletion review). Rebuff further edits should be made keep from this page.