- 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 of the debate was - kept
Shwebomin[edit]
First note Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jimmyvanthach. "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for Propaganda or advocacy of any kind" (arbcom). It appears that this is some schoolteacher who bogusly claims the throne of Burma. The last king of Burma was kicked out in the 1880s and died in 1916 leaving no children. It appears that the throne went to the strongest individual rather than any geneological descent. Mr Shwebomin has failed to produce any genealogical evidence anyway. His name also doesn't make sense and other inconsistencies seem to indicate that he is bogus. There's more on Usenet here.
Now, that claiming a throne is not reason to delete (though the article has serious accuracy and POV problems) but I don't think he's notable for kicking up a fuss as is "Michael of Albany". There are a couple of articles in local papers, but nothing in the Guardian as stated, and nothing otherwise of note. Dunc|☺ 11:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am not from England, but if a member here on wikipedia is located in England, would they mind contacting the
The Philip Green Memorial Trust because Prince Shwebomin is listed as a Patron of the organization along with other prominent people in the United Kingdom and from around the world.
They could give information concerning his lineage if they are accepting him as a Patron becauase he would had to provide an application with family information that for their organization that helps children in the United Kingdom.[1]
- There contact information: [2]
Address:
The Philip Green Memorial Trust
301 Trafalgar House
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 about this site: webmaster@pgmt.org.uk
Jimmyvanthach 12:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - no matter if his claims are disputed, he's borderline notable for claiming the throne and being discussed on Usenet. Article needs some serious NPOV work, though -- Ferkelparade π 12:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I'm in two minds over this. On the one hand I don't think that people should be able to get an entry in Wikipedia just by randomly claiming a throne with absolutely no evidence, but on the other hand if someone were to look him up here it might be useful to have an article describing how bogus his claim is. However, that article doesn't exist at the moment, the present article contains nothing of value, and his notability is very low (fraudulent claimants are mentioned all the time on alt.talk.royalty, and very few of them are notable, and the article in the "Hounslow Guardian" doesn't carry much weight), which makes the chances of anyone looking him up quite slim, so unless someone's willing to put the work into writing something NPOV (i.e. effectively writing an entirely new article) it should be killed off. It's very much like the Micronation articles, in my opinion: being a fraudulent claimant doesn't make him automatically liable for 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 opinion. I'm not in favor of separate articles on any pretenders, no matter how loud they are about their claims. Rather, in a "monarchy of" section of the nation in question, a single sentence saying, "The monarchy is extinct; however, there are several who claim a right to it, including X, Y, and Z" is sufficient. If there were a strong claim, or were the claim to have enormous support, then that would be slightly different, but only slightly. Geogre 19:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm mostly with Geogre here, except I would redirect rather than delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:51, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep Even it seems that he is a pretender to the throne, he is notable based on Newspaper Articles that have listed him as possible heir to throne to Burma, it seems from the articles that there is no other heir that is claiming the throne of Burma besides him:
--Saigon76nyc 19:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)--Saigon76nyc 19:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Just as a note, I'd be loathe to assume notability based on some of those links - the journalistic rigour of the two (local) London-area newspapers is an open question, and they're both actually printing the same article - [3] and [4] appear to be identical, after both are set to "printer friendly"
- Additionally, the Leeds University link is part of an outreach project at a local school ([5] this, judging by the URL) - it was likely written by a student there ("This project aims to bring together the collective talents and creative strengths of children from Britain and Europe who are producing work, in electronic form, under the common theme of Childhood."), and certainly isn't a "university publication" as may be implied by the link. In addition, it seems to basically say "This guy said he was the Crown Prince of Burma, and he's really a nice guy" - would this class as independent verification?
- I can't comment on the validity of the Washington Times article, but he gets one line there and no comment about him other than a name and a quote. Again, not much verification. Just noting you need to keep an eye on what's actually being cited in support... Shimgray 21:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: promo. User:Saigon76nyc appears to be a sock puppet. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence that I've seen, just seems to be somebody with delusions of grandeur. modargo 21:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete As I have pointed out, this man's claim is not something that is debatable; it is a clear impossibility. The last King (Theebaw) outlived all of his sons and died long before this man was even born, so he could not possibly be a "Crown Prince". The simple use of the name "Prince Shwebomin" is ridiculous as well as Min means prince, so he's repeating himself. He seems to only be associated with others of equally dubious legitimacy in that bizzare section of society that seems devoted to making themselves seem "higher born" than "normal" people. As for the links, one is a copy, the others are dubious and according to this story http://www.cherwell.org/?id=74 more than a few have worried about their reputations being sullied by appearing to endorse his self-appointed status. NguyenHue 22:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue
- Keep but if and only if the strong counterarguments to refute the claim are included. - Skysmith 08:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep I've revised this article, removing POV. This chap may not be the frickin' king of Burma but he's notable enough to be factually portrayed as a first class snob and opportunist on Wiki (with his own supplied 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 out the POV. Gamaliel 21:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep with counterarguments to refute the claim to title Prince --Jimmyvanthach 18:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- 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.