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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. An editor has requested here that this article be deleted. To quote: "Hi. I would like to request the page for Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah is removed. There has been no Sri Lankan royal family since the 1600s, the country is in a serious civil war, and that someone has put a page up claiming there is a prince, when the only sources are dodgy websites, and a cheesy low budget BBC tv show, its in very poor taste and is quite offensive. The article does not further wikipedia as the person seems to have achieved no serious accomplishments, and his importance is not obvious as he has no political power, and no recognition in the sri lankan community, or the rest of the world for that matter. Frankly I think its disguisting self promotion - more of a personal page than an encyclopaedic entry." Skomorokh 02:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skomorokh I'm completely with you on this, but for your interest, the kings of Kandy (Kingdom of Kandy) ruled until 1815, so there has been a Sri Lankan royal family since the 1600s. But yes, there haven't been any kings or princes of Jaffna since 1619 CE yet Mr Kanagarajah still claims to be one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.141.100 (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just to clarify, I made this nomination on behalf of another editor, User:Shuggyg, who posted the above-quoted request for deletion here. Regards, Skomorokh 10:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can only find one "legitimate" reference to this name, and that's in the Sunday Mirror [1], hardly the pinnacle of WP:RS. This article demonstrates that not even royalty are inherently notable. Pburka (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There have been no kings of Jaffna since 1619 CE. It is absurd for someone to lay claim to a title that became extinct nearly 400 years ago. Furthermore, Sri Lanka is a Democratic Socialist Republic - and therefore does not recognise titles of nobility, let alone extinct ones from several centuries ago. In addition, Mr Kanagarajah has not been able to produce a complete family tree tracing father-son descent from any of the Arya Chakravarti kings, rendering his claim even more tenuous. An individual's decision to lay claim to a title that has ceased to exist for several centuries by constructing a website does not warrant a wikipedia article let alone an article that by its title appears to recognise his claim to the dubious title "Prince". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.165.55 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page is simple vanity. I would suggest the page should be renamed to Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah and should remain as a record of the vanity and embarrasing ego of one man, however I believe the issue is very sensitive due to the upheaval in Sri Lanka. This page has no robust evidentiary support, and appearing on a low budget BBC entertainment TV show alone is not noteworthy enough to warrant an encylopeadic entry.Shuggyg (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as risable and unintentionally amusing as the program was, it was a low-budget reality TV show originally broadcast on BBC3.
Furthermore, irrespective of whether or not Mr Kanagarajah warrants his own wikipedia page, I strongly suggest removing "Prince" from the page's title. As his claim to the title is highly controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.165.55 (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be nothing about him in the news- even specifically searching English-language sources from Sri Lanka. Nothing about him on Google book search either, despite the fact that there has been a lot written by academics about the civil war and upheaval in Sri Lanka. Non-notable pretender. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article is a constant target of self-promoting vandalism, look at the current version of the page. No matter how many times admins revert changes, individuals with an agenda vandalise the page: styling Mr Kanagarajah as "H.R.H." and replacing neutral phrases like "claims to be" to "is" and other such nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.138.253 (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is largely the same reason I gave at the last AFD, which concluded without consensus. There are only ~50 unique google hits for this guy, and the only remotely good sources are a biogrphy from from The Nation, an advertisement from The Independent, and the reality show mentioned here many times. I don't believe being on a reality show alone makes him notable, so the only source that might demonstrate his notability is The Nation. But given that newspaper's greater than normal biases, the complete lack of transparency on its editorial process, and some very questionable publications it has produced, I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. So there has been no substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. There has been substantial coverage in one dubious source, a low budget entertainment piece from another source, and an advertisement from a third source. These are apparently the only times this man has ever been mentioned outside of blogs and his own writings, or trivial lists of "exiled royalty" on unreliable websites. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.