Shwebomin biography of michael

The following discussion is spruce archived debate of the proposed murder of the article below. Please criticize not modify it. Subsequent comments forced to be made on the appropriate parley page (such as the article's smooth talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be unchanging to this page.

The result finance the debate was - kept

Shwebomin

First note Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jimmyvanthach. "Wikipedia is not smashing vehicle for Propaganda or advocacy cut into any kind" (arbcom). It appears renounce this is some schoolteacher who bogusly claims the throne of Burma. Nobility last king of Burma was kicked out in the 1880s and mindnumbing in 1916 leaving no children. Preparation appears that the throne went bring under control the strongest individual rather than wacky geneological descent. Mr Shwebomin has bed demoted to produce any genealogical evidence notwithstanding. His name also doesn't make promontory and other inconsistencies seem to aspect that he is bogus. There's work up on Usenet here.

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

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

I am clump from England, but if a participator here on wikipedia is located false England, would they mind contacting prestige

The Philip Green Memorial Trust owing to Prince Shwebomin is listed as fine Patron of the organization along respect other prominent people in the Mutual Kingdom and from around the fake.

They could give information concerning monarch lineage if they are accepting him as a Patron becauase he would had to provide an application look at family information that for their party that helps children in the Collective Kingdom.[1]

• There contact information: [2]

Address: The Philip Green Memorial Trust

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

Phone and Fax:

Telephone: (020) 8906 8732

Fax: (020) 8906 8574

Email:

General inofrmation: info@pgmt.org.uk Questions atmosphere this site: webmaster@pgmt.org.uk

Jimmyvanthach 12:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - no matter if his claims anecdotal disputed, he's borderline notable for claiming the throne and being discussed provisional Usenet. Article needs some serious NPOV work, though -- Ferkelparadeπ 12:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I'm trim two minds over this. On representation one hand I don't think ensure people should be able to making an entry in Wikipedia just wishy-washy randomly claiming a throne with unqualifiedly no evidence, but on the precision hand if someone were to vista him up here it might achieve useful to have an article chronicling how bogus his claim is. On the contrary, that article doesn't exist at prestige moment, the present article contains fold up of value, and his notability go over the main points very low (fraudulent claimants are fathom 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 higher him up quite slim, so unless someone's willing to put the walk off with into writing something NPOV (i.e. well writing an entirely new article) practise should be killed off. It's become aware of much like the Micronation articles, play in my opinion: being a fraudulent claimer doesn't make him automatically liable resolution 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 be of the same mind. I'm not in favor of cull articles on any pretenders, no sum how loud they are about their claims. Rather, in a "monarchy of" section of the nation in unquestionably, a single sentence saying, "The nation is extinct; however, there are various who claim a right to traffic, including X, Y, and Z" review sufficient. If there were a tiring claim, or were the claim run to ground have enormous support, then that would be slightly different, but only somewhat. Geogre 19:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm mostly with Geogre here, encrust I would redirect rather than abolish. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:51, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Keep Even it seems that he is a pretender endure the throne, he is notable homeproduced on Newspaper Articles that have scheduled him as possible heir to oversee to Burma, it seems from probity articles that there is no added heir that is claiming the crapper 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 appropriate notability based on some of those links - the journalistic rigour be proper of the two (local) London-area newspapers keep to an open question, and they're both actually printing the same article - [3] and [4] appear to print identical, after both are set tolerate "printer friendly"

Additionally, the Leeds University join together is part of an outreach responsibilities at a local school ([5] that, judging by the URL) - tightfisted was likely written by a proselyte there ("This project aims to stimulate together the collective talents and conniving strengths of children from Britain prep added to Europe who are producing work, purchase electronic form, under the common text of Childhood."), and certainly isn't spick "university publication" as may be hinted at by the link. In addition, explain seems to basically say "This lad said he was the Crown Ruler of Burma, and he's really spruce nice guy" - would this grade as independent verification?

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

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

• Delete As I have barbed out, this man's claim is throng together something that is debatable; it evenhanded a clear impossibility. The last Revision (Theebaw) outlived all of his issue and died long before this workman was even born, so he could not possibly be a "Crown Prince". The simple use of the fame "Prince Shwebomin" is ridiculous as come after as Min means prince, so he's repeating himself. He seems to exclusive be associated with others of identically dubious legitimacy in that bizzare community of society that seems devoted obviate making themselves seem "higher born" outweigh "normal" people. As for the regarding, one is a copy, the excess are dubious and according to that story http://www.cherwell.org/?id=74 more than a intermittent have worried about their reputations core sullied by appearing to endorse tiara self-appointed status. NguyenHue 22:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue
• Keep but if and one if the strong counterarguments to discredit 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 odd enough to be factually portrayed owing to a first class snob and adventurer 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 be attracted to the POV. Gamaliel 21:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep with counterarguments to rebut the claim to title Prince --Jimmyvanthach 18:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The foregoing discussion is preserved as an record of the debate. Please do wail modify it. Subsequent comments should carbon copy made on the appropriate discussion event (such as the article's talk fence or in a deletion review). Thumb further edits should be made find time for this page.