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. Thanks everyone for contributing and please remember to assume good faith with my closure. If you want to discuss undeleting this article, please request it at deletion review, not on my talk page. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shwebomin

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: Most of the sourced links are broken. One thing I am sure is no historian working on Burmese history ever mentioned his name. He is not mentioned in official genealogy. The grandson of King Thibaw, Taw Phaya also stated that he is the only surviving grandson. The question is, of course, not about the legitimacy but about notability. Did he generate enough controversy? Considering no historian, and no notable figure, no reliable news agency for example BBC, have ever mentioned his name, and probably no interested parties have ever heard of him, I believe this article shouldn't be here. Of course, anyone can go around London and claim to be of Royal Lineage. SWH^®^talk 06:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find a reliable source that directly confronts his claims, but they're almost certainly bogus in light of Taw Phaya's quite sufficiently documented story (and quite a few less-reliable sources detail that). That aside, even people with fabricated claims can be notable (Perkin Warbeck, Kaspar Hauser). But I don't see that much here. The references provide very little actual coverage, and what there is is mostly in local London-area papers with dubious editorial oversight (a topic raised even in the first AFD, way back in the crazy days of 2004 when being talked about on Usenet was a signifier of notability!), or are clearly not independent (such as interviews with the purported prince). There's nothing here to meet current inclusion standards, and while legitimate royalty and plausible pretenders get something of a pass by the nature of their titles, that doesn't extend this far. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable with significant coverage. There are no longer deadlinks in the article's references, the former links have been restored using archive data in accordance with Wikipedia:Link rot. Also, there are things that can be considered reliable when they come from the biographical article's source. See WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source and WP:SELFPUB#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. It would seems that one's status as a pretender would fall into the usable category, and thus make an interview a reliable source for that purpose. Shwebomin is also listed as a claimant under Burma in the Constantian Society database. While I don't believe that he is the legitimate pretender to the Burmese throne, see Christopher Buyers's Genealogy of the Konbaung Dynasty especially page 19, I do believe, as is substantiated in the article by reliable sources, that he is a pretender. So what if he is primarily a socialite (See helping open Stephen Desmond's documentary, 'The Jaweed Al Ghussein Story', socialites can be notable. See the article on Anna Anderson for a similar, but distinct, case. --Bejnar (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by significant coverage? Does any reliable source mention him? (Let's say BBC or Guardian for example). I think you are confusing Alaungpaya, Prince of Shwebo (because he started the conquest of Burma from Shwebo, "min" means prince) with the so-called Shwebomin, the pretender here. (Alaungpaya is the name stated in your put.com list. They clearly stated "no known claimant for Burma") I checked the genealogy, http://www.royalark.net/Burma/konbau19.htm, I don't see any mentioning of his name. Please don't confuse with other people with similar or exactly the same names. Shwebo is the town where the dynasty was founded. So, Shwebomin (min is prince), has so many historical antecedents. As for the interview, I am not questioning about whether it is self-published or not. But about whether "defining movement" can be reliable source for such purpose. Anna Anderson is an undisputedly notable figure nowhere comparable to the Shwebomin here, to whom some people labeling as fraud. And as I have mentioned before, no serious Burmese historian acknowledges there is a controversy. SWH^®^talk 11:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am talking about the topic of this article, the London socialite who is pretending to be a crown prince. --Bejnar (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he also pointed out that Shwebomin was not mentioned in Constantian Society database and Genealogy of the Konbaung Dynasty as you'd claimed. PhyoWP *click 17:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't claim that, quite the opposite. Read what I wrote more closely. Page 19 is where his name ought to occur were he to be listed. (subjunctive case) --Bejnar (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Anderson article has high quality sources to back up such as books, research papers and many others. But Shwebomin doesn't have any. I would vote keep even if he has just one link to BBC, Guardian, AP, The Irrawaddy or similar reputable newspapers with him or Royal Family as topic of discussion. It can also be just one paper or book from a reputable historian researching Burmese history. But he doesn't have any. My insistence on having at least one high quality source is to prevent this article from POV and promotional edits in the future. I don't think it is good if all information from the article comes from Shwebomin himself (interviews) and his websites (so-called Royal Burmese Society). Right now, we have Joseph Crisp's article to balance against. While I do not object it, I don't know whether his Geocities entry could be reliable. Should it be removed in the future, the article will become POV again. SWH^®^talk 00:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Do a internet search on his name and there are numerous articles written about him. Also, there are two news videos aired of him in the United Kingdom.

1. Interview about Leadership & Selflessness with Prince Shwebomin by The Defining Moment 2. Interview about Power Vs. Moral Authority with Prince Shwebomin by The Defining Moment --Additionally, Please see the book THE KING IN EXILE, written by Sudha Shah, About the Royal Family of Burma, Crown Prince Shwebomin is listed epilogue "3", please see link: [1] Here is more information on the book "The King in Exile: The Fall of the Royal Family of Burma" , where Crown Prince Shwebomin is listed: [2] >>INFO made by prior member concerning facts>>>>>NOTICE MEMBERS in ENGLAND <<<<<<<<

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.[3]

The Philip Green Memorial Trust: Prince Shwebomin is listed on the first row left side

There contact information: [4]

Address: The Philip Green Memorial Trust

The Philip Green Memorial Trust 301 Trafalger House Grenville Place Mill Hill London NW7 3SA

Tel: 020 8906 8732 Fax: 020 8906 8574 email: info@pgmt.org.uk

>>>Newspaper info showing Crown Prince Shwebomin<<<

I am sorry. The Trust itself only marginally meets notability. The appearance of his name in the trust patrons list doesn't count here. Further, when an amateur interviewer asked to produce evidence, the Shwebomin himself is using this Wikipedia entry as "evidence". Ironically, this entry cites a very obscure online video in which he claims himself as heir as "evidence". That's what happening here. For the book, it doesn't mention him in a paragraph or anything. I only see a name in a citation, not in content, and nothing about him in the whole book about Burmese Royal Family. (The name Shwebomin can be easily confused with other historical kings, princes with similar or the same name as well. As mentioned above, Alaungpaya, "Prince of Shwebo or Shwebomin, is whom most reliable sources are referring to (Mostly regarding to his tomb in Shwebo). Not the pretender here) And I don't think small publishing local London area newspapers could be counted as reliable sources for the claimant of a Burmese Royal title. SWH^®^talk 11:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the Royal Family of Burma, Crown Prince Shwebomin is listed epilogue "3", please see link: [5], it clearly lists Shwebomin as HRH Crown Prince and the it was conducted in 2006, so it is specifically him. I suggest you read the whole book where he is listed, the book is about the Royal Family of Burma. The google link, does not list have the whole book available online. - There are various newspapers that have quoted Shwebomin such as the United States Newspaper Washington Times Jewish veterans bow to warrior’s memory and the United Kingdom, The Herald (Plymouth) Burmese prince at charity ball - As well the interview is not obscure but many distinguish guests have appeared at spoken on the show The Defining Moment Television Talk Show, take a look at the various guest that have appeared on the show which is very popular in the United Kingdom. DavidMinhPham (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. It doesn't list but appear in a citation about epilogue, and not in epilogue itself. Can you please quote a passage from that book in verbatim which mentioned Shwebomin? I am not sure about the popularity of the show, but most people interviewed, and the show itself, don't have a page on Wikipedia. Also, please stop moving the article to title it as "Crown Prince". Even Taw Phaya, who is undisputedly legitimate grandson, is not titled as such. See WP:AT. SWH^®^talk 15:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is you need a reliable source in which he is the primary subject of discussion, or it can even be a discussion about Burmese Royalty, but not a random page in which his name pops up (Such as Jewish Veteran page you cited). I can give you five citations, from completely reliable newspapers that mentions my friend's name. But that doesn't mean he should have a page on Wikipedia. Can you list any high quality reliable sources (For a claimant of Burmese Royalty) such as BBC, Guardian, The Irrawaddy or any words from historians, rather than small local london area newspapers which have no interest in verification. SWH^®^talk 16:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please, let us not confuse notability with whether or not Shwebomin has any legitimate claim to pretender status. Since that status is contested, assume that he is a fraud, like Anna Anderson and do a proper notability analysis. --Bejnar (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding on the reliability of sources, there is also an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Defining_Movement_and_Shwebomin My suggestion is since no RS or reputable sources have discussed about him, I think we should keep it as a draft in userpage or something, until it has a reputable source. Then, we may recreate. SWH^®^talk 03:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No solid coverage in independent reliable sources. It could be userfied, as Soewinhan suggested, but (1) we'd have to have someone willing to take it, and (2) it would be best to delete it after a year or two should no improvements be made, since we're not an indefinite webhost. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a pretender is not grounds for automatic notability — anyone can claim to be royalty. And the question of how strong his claim is, while no doubt contentious, is irrelevant for us: the more important question is whether he's notable for being a pretender. The sources found so far (minor newspapers, trivial mentions in longer stories, and web sites with a clear bias) are not enough to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources do not add up to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This article is a mess. Perhaps a case could be made for notability, but not in its current form, poorly sourced and riddled with fact tags. Were it not a BLP, I would slap some tags on it, but if it's like this after three years, we shouldn't leave a shoddy BLP up any longer. It appears to be a weird battleground as well. Until I removed it, this article contained an internet archive link to a defunct geocities website (!!!!) as one of its most cited sources, and another editor had inserted text into the article attacking the site's author as an "alleged historian". This article should be deleted on both grounds of BLP and of WP:COMPETENCE. Gamaliel (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2013 (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.