Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Family of Lanka

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 as apparent hoax. The contributions by Theazerbaijanglory are discounted as incomprehensible. Sandstein 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Family of Lanka[edit]

Contested prod. This article is a hoax or at the very best a fantasy. It's unreferenced, created by an SPA, completely at odds with the history of Sri Lanka in other WP articles such as Sri Lanka and Kingdom of Kandy. The article's purpose seems to be to support the claims in Nilupul Narendra Rajasingha VII, which gets a flat zero ghits for the subject and which I'm also nominating. andy (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 10:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of the Nilupul Narendra Rajasingha VII article looks like its taken/based on Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia. As I type this the Nilupul Narendra Rajasingha VII article says George is also in the line of succession to the Imperial Throne of the Mogul Dynasty through His Maternal Great Great Grand Mother. Why are these hoaxers so sloppy? - dwc lr (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That might explain the only edit he's made outside this hoax, blanking the Russian Imperial Family template, which seems an odd thing to do. andy (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i found that many of the facts were incorrect and tried making changes and it got reverted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauljohn564 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i feel you people should first check the references provided, the books listed before comming to any conclusions. typing mistakes could occur, and how could you simply say that this ia a based on Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia, and compare the content and when Britain itself had 6 Kings named George, why only Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia. all referecne are not found online, they come in books as well.--Theazerbaijanglory (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the Family of the person mentioned in the article, is not somthing that i made, his ancestry and family tree was approved and comfirmed by the National Archive of Sri Lanka and the British Archives, i obtained a copy from the national archives of Sri Lanka and , his great grand father's name is G. H. George Edward Themis Gunawardena (1874-1934)who was married to Silvia Angammuwa (1880 - 1915)(firstly) and later to Cecilia Wijesingha. George was name used by many sri Lankans during the colonial Rule. Sir Oliver Ernest Goonetilleke was a Sri Lankan not a hoaxed by a person copying everything from Oliver Cromwell, William Gopallawa is also a Sri Lankan not a British or some other person bearing the name William.....

Sri Lanka Many historical records a still kept in documented form. very few is available online, as for example wikipedia has information about all british kings and queens, but out of the 197 monarchs of Sri Lanka substantial information of 10 kings cannot be found. but books in sri lanka still give a vast knowledge abouth these.--Theazerbaijanglory (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rajawaliya (story of kings) is one good example. the Mahawanse, Chulawanse are also examples of these.

the codes of conduct put up by king Nissanka Malla are still presevered in documentaion. i will try my best to upload to these information to other websites to help people across seas to known what a great monarchy sri lanka once had and what there desendants do in pretendence. --Theazerbaijanglory (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is utterly unsuitable for you people to directly label these article as haox, did you atlest have time or even bother finding out the books that i have mentioned. i find information of books more reliable than the once found online.--Theazerbaijanglory (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The way I see it is this: "Nilupul Narendra Rajasingha" can't be found on the web and your article provides no references that show that he even exists, let alone is a king-in-waiting. So it fails the key Wikipedia policy of verifiability and therefore must be deleted. The other article was clearly written to support this one, so it too fails. andy (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request you to check to books mentioned above.......--Theazerbaijanglory (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your sources in the articles are links to random news sites. Post links to the specific articles so we can verify it. I believe you have cited one book Royalty in Ancient Ceylon during the period of the "Great Dynasty", or rather you've given a link to Amazon, what page number are getting your information from. - dwc lr (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please find below the page numbers.

20th Centuray Impression of ceylon (1905):-

Pages :- 287 (gives details about George Edward Gunawardena)includin pictures. Pages : - 598 (Details of the paternal ancestry)

the richmond castle mentioned in the article is now owned by the public trustee and was built by the gran uncle of the person who is in the article (his brothers desendants). but custamarily this mansion is used for annnoiting. the link to a news paper article is [[1]]

Royalty in Ancient Ceylon during the period of the "Great Dynasty

Pages:- 354 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazerbaijanglory (talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Padikara Mudaliyar is title

Comment page 354 you say. That's funny Google Books says "Royalty in Ancient Ceylon during the period of the Great Dynasty" has 52 pages.[2] Amazon.co.uk says it has 52 pages.[3] - dwc lr (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - 35

and also the Rajawaliya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazerbaijanglory (talk • contribs) 14:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, what's it got to do with Nilupul Narendra Rajasingha VII? This is a fantasy. andy (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that.... and why the anyway.....

anyway, i tried to update your site with sri lanka history. your LIst of longest reining monarchs of all time does not show a single sri lankan monarch, there where many sri lankan kings who rulled 50+ years, and King Pandukaabhya ruled for 70 years.

as for the fantasy thing. yes it is a fantasy!!!!!!!!, if any of you people are in sri lanka, please read the paper the Sunday times of Sri Lanka next sunday. for an inteview with the person mentioned in the article. my kind request to you, remains do some justice to sri lankan history and update your site with more information about Sri Lanka History.............. , which i suppose will not be found online, refere the Rajawaliya.... [Lankan Glory] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazerbaijanglory (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from myside i will not further write on this page ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i close the discussion from my side and leave others to do what ever they want.............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazerbaijanglory (talk • contribs) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - see this afd, recent reposted as Prince Jerry Remigius Kannagarajah (and marked for speedy deletion). andy (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i am new, i dnt understand what you people actually need, please tell i will try to do something in such a way to satisfy you criteria.

now this Prince Jerry, the Article, i have provided a refernce link, what more information do you expect from the editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazerbaijanglory (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

after serious editing this article could be merged with a relative of the person in the article, if any exist.......--Pauljohn564 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these two articles has no RS to prove any of what is said is true.Nitraven (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2008 (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.