Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dambski Roman II


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Dambski Roman II

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No assertion of notability per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Sole source so far is a website claiming to be his official site, replete with amusing sale offers on buying his royal title ("20% OFF until 31 Dec 12! FREE Coat of Arms"). Possible WP:HOAX. Altered Walter (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see any evidence where he is descended from either Wilhelm Karl, Duke of Urach or Stanisław August Poniatowski, the only two possible ancestors through whom a claim could be made. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're in political considerations. On wikipedia we must explain all. About the sale of nobility, James I (England), Louis XIV (France) have made that. About the pretentions of the dukes of Urach, are they more strong with a king who has regned a few months without to go to his kingdom? I think we must propose all pretenders but the article is in construction and it's impossible to explain all without some time to realise the article. I see that contributions about nobility are very politised and it's a shame. In 1994, while the Russian Communist influence was still felt in Lithuania, Roman Dambski was invited by Dr Jonas Stankus to attend a world congress of Lithuanian nobility in Vilnius. Around 400 people attended, over double the number who attended the gathering in 1996 which produced the present Lithuanian Nobility Society (LRUN), which uses the name Royal, but has no Sovereign. Roman Dambski was appointed a founding Senator of the newly formed Lithuanian Royal Nobility Society (LBKS) on 23 April 1994, but was subsequently snubbed by the 1996 society. Although accepting the Polish historical lineage by default, the LRUN does acknowledge that Lithuania was a Kingdom. It is that Kingdom which the present Roman Dambski seeks to restore in its fullness. Differents sources have been added to explain differents opinions. Please see them” Calleville — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calleville (talk • contribs)
 * Self-published sources aren't generally reliable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment one of the books listed as a source by the article's creator in the current version is "Roman Dambski, Royal Lithuania (Universal Books, 2008), ISBN 978-0-9587-2092-2". But a Google Book search for that ISBN brings up a book titled "Golden Vision Superclub Money Mates Manual: How to Make a Million the Easy Way! & Much More", by Prince Roman. Yet more evidence that this article is an attempt at marketing for a "royal title" salesman, or a hoax. Altered Walter (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Damski is a writter in differents domains. I don't understand why you haven't deleted this fake reference and you have probably founded the book wichh is adapted for the bibliography. Don't be partial and give access to the sources and excuse the eventual mistakes in this new article with imperfections Calleville —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but most of his "domains" appear to be nice little earners. If it's a "fake reference", then why did you add it in this edit? I see you've changed it now to another book self-published by "Prince Roman". Altered Walter (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I've deleted the book with the tittle "Royal Lithunia" because I've seen it's a private edtion and we haven't ISBN code. I've tried to find it but it was a bad reference. Dambski is a writter and he edit differents books. For neutrality, I think we must propose only book with ISBN code. I've made a few articles on wikipedia. I've a lot work and some mistakes are possible during the redaction. I need some time. Some of them have been corrected by another contributors. Thank you! I see that another contributors help to create and correct this article. I'm french and my contributions are essentialy on wikepedia France. I'm doctor of history (contributions on wikipedia france about the general François Grouvel and the duc de Guines for example). I'm not specialy a Dambski's partisan but it's an original exemple of pretender who has declared in 2005 that Lituania is a kingdom with a king (him) who unofficialy reign from Australia (Darwin). He has accointances with a part of Lituanian nobility. An another part has snubbed him because they accept the republic and a pretender for the "folklore". I've insered links wich exprim the differents opinions. Dambski's example is interesting because we can see that the Litunian throne is controversed with him and the duke of Urach. I try to present this example with neutrality and objectivity. Create an article isn't make a panegyric about a pretender. You seem to have real competences. It will be perfect to help to create this article with objectivity. Please exprim your opinion with neutrality in the article and correct some mistakes before me. I'm french and my english isn't perfect. The article isn't ended but i must go to the countryside for Christmas. I'll continue in a few days. I've programmed a section with the different pretentions and the duke of Urach must be mentionned too. Thanks for your help. Best regards and happy Christmas Calleville (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2012


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 03:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

 — Licinius123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete The Thinking Person's Royal Encyclopedia is written by this person, and it's the only source that actually backs up the claims made in the article as far as I can tell. This smells to me like a clever hoax. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The claim of notability appears to be a pretender, but as "natural" (i.e. illegitimate) son of the previous claimant, his claim must be dubious. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was absorbed by Russia in 1795 under the third Polish partition and had long been a possession of the Polish crown, so that I cannot belive that this is an active claim to a crown.  Indeed, I am dubious whether than title claimed can be more than one of nobility.  We have many articles on the nobility of various European countries, but not (I think) on currnet nobility of countries where nobility has been abolished.  We would need something much more substantial to make a worthwhile article.  I also smell WP:HOAX.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Confirm the article. Wikipedia is an encylopedia who must give all informations. We've a pretender who is a member of the lituanian nobility. We've on wiki personnalities who don't make unanimity. For example Paddy Roy Bates of Sealand and now prince Mickael who sell titles of nobility. We've a link to their site and all items they sell. I don't understand this procedure of deletion. If you delete this article, you must delete lot of anothers and it's incompatible with the universal values of wiki. It's my opinion licinius123 (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have to "give all informations"; also please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Objectivity. Objective article. All details are in the article and each can build his opinion. This article respect neutrality of opinion as an historian. I don't understand why this article create a polemic. if it's a problem delete it. Calleville 20:04, 29 december 2012
 * Comment Article's creator Calleville has been blocked for a week for sockpuppetry, along with sockpuppet account licinius123, both of which are accounts used for posting to this discussion above. Altered Walter (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2013 (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.