Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE (3 keep, 13 delete, 3 merge (discounting IPs)).  Rob e  rt  23:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança
This was already voted for deletion here. The article is totally POV. Its bloody irresponsible of us to allow the wikipedia to be host for lunatic claims. Its the same thing as a micronation. If i decide to crate the Duchy of Bumpatabumpah in my flat and write 10 internet sites about it, that doenst mean that i deserve an article on wikipedia. This is an embarassment to the project. muriel@pt 10:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Relevant policy: Verifiability. muriel@pt 09:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Adenda: the article is also stuffed with lies, such as Dom Rosario is the president also of the Royal House of Portugal Museum , which does not exist except in the guy's courtyard.muriel@pt 11:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I remember that Muriel is the author of the article about "Duarte Pio,duke of Braganza" and seems to be a fierce supporter of duarte (or miguelist supporter). So is clear and foreseen that she want to delete the dom Rosario article.Manuel 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This Duke of Bragança (there are 2 claimants) is one of a small number of claimants to leadership of the former royal house of Portugal, and is most certainly deserving of a Wikipedia article. --Centauri 10:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but if you want you can also be one and have your wiki article :) muriel@pt 11:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Portugal has been a republic for around 100 years now, which seems unlikely to change. Unless it is established that this issue is of any interest to anybody except that "small number of claimants to leadership", delete. Sandstein 10:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The duke of Braganza dom Rosario is a pretender of the Royal House of Portugal. His rights come from abdication of the last daughter of the king Charles of Portugal, Maria Pia, and he has also many jurisdictional international recognitions. These are the more important facts. Others are only talk. I don't understand because miss Muriel want hide this truth. I remember her that now are not in dictatorial (salazarist) period and this is a democratic encyclopedia where is important introduce to all people the historical truth and not the personal certainties. Manuel 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the author of the lies. muriel@pt 12:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * why? please explain Manuel 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You wrote that Dom Rosario is the president also of the Royal House of Portugal Museum . This does not exist. / and this is created by the Rosario supporters. Isnt it funny that the thing doesnt exist in Portugal? Producing an internet page does not produce a truth. muriel@pt 12:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Dom Rosario meanwhile has decided to open also in Italy this museum (this is the italian seat). Soon also in Lisbon will open a seat of this museum! There are works of art of undreds of artists. Museum of the Royal House of Portugal Manuel 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Italian seat? An apartment in Rome's suburbia with the museum in the balcony? lol Producing a page does not produce a truth. muriel@pt 09:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The museum has an area of 1000 mq and one person can find works of art of undreds of international artists. Muriel, your foolish talk does not produce a truth. Manuel 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The Duke of Braganza is worthy of entry in Wikipedia. But is Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha the Duke?  Or even a 'real' pretender to the title?  Google gives me 14 hits for him.  Now it may be that I'm missing something here but I would have imagined that a bona fide claimant to the title would have a lot more than that on google.  So until I find out otherwise, I go for delete. Marcus22 14:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you search in Google.com : " Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Braganza ", you can find 337 results.Manuel 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Following the link you post below, I obtain 337 hits. But that's well into the realms of not-notable. Also, a good number of those 337 do not seem to necessarily refer to the same person. (I would of course expect a lot of returns for Saxe Coburg Gotha as that was, I think, the family name of Prince Albert. (Husband of Queen Victoria).  But there is not obviously a link between the two families). Sorry, I'm still not convinced. Marcus22 18:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A further point. Just checking again and that link appears to be to google in Italian. Searching google.com (in English) I get 0 results for the same name.  Whilst I don't purport to understand why this is - and freely admit I may be making a mistake - at the moment that tends to convince me that this chap is not-notable.  At least, not-notable enough.  Marcus22 19:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with the article on Hilda Toledano. Which clearly states the very big flaws in this claim to royalty. Average Earthman 14:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article does not show that this person has done anything in his life that would make him notable in the sense of an encyclopedia. Martg76 15:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN, unverifiable.  There are no independent sources to cite.  --A D Monroe III 17:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A sub-trivial snapshot of a sub-trivia sub-culture, and hasn't made much of a splash in the news, unlike for example those women who said they were Anastasia. Even Hilda Toledano, who you'd expect to have made some impact, has a trivial internet presence made up mostly of Wikipedia mirrors. Also, if I search for "Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Braganza" I get no hits at all, if I change the Z to a C I get seven, all of which are Wikipedia mirrors. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you search in google : Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Braganza you can find 337 results Manuel 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 337 Google hits is small. Even smaller is 144, which are the unique Google hits.  Even smaller is zero, which is what you get if you Google "Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Braganza" with the quotes.  Finding pages that have these words in any order is nonsense.  --A D Monroe III 19:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Also if you search in google about Duarte Pio of Braganza you can find only 509 results and only 17 results if you search "Duarte Pio of Braganza"with the quotes. Manuel 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * All the 3337 are: your pages and wikipedia mirrors. Producing a page does not produce a truth. muriel@pt 09:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The same problem is for "your" Duarte pio of Braganza Manuel 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's because you've botched the search term. Google yields est. 3,140 hits for "Duarte Pio de Bragança". Choess 00:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know enough about this topic, but what I can see is that the grammar in the article is horrible.  If its deleted, fine.  If its kept, and it has merit, it needs a rewrite. Stu 19:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unfortunately Manuel de Sousa has chosen to use Wikipedia as a means of publicizing a fringe character's absurd pretensions, in a way that does not recognize the absurdity of the claims, and is thus misleading. An article with a neutral point of view would be under the man's real name "Rosario Poidimani", and would point out that [1] his "claim" is through a purported (and unlikely) bastard daughter (impossible) [2] who "abdicated in his favor" (impossible) to whom he is [3] unrelated. The claim is ludicrous, and unimportant, and most importantly, with Manuel continuing to propagandize in this and other articles (see the vote at Talk:Hilda Toledano), it is apparent we cannot maintain a neutral article. This is just a fork of the Hilda Toledano article (it's the same "claim", dressed up for an unrelated man), created when it was made apparent that that article would not be residing at "Maria Pia of Saxony Coburgo Gotha and Bragança". If we could maintain an article like this one, which makes the absurdity of the claims clear, it would be worth doing. But with Manuel, who is associated with the websites of this fantasy royalty faction, showing no commitment to NPOV, and a relentless pursuit of falsely depicting these claims as reasonable and true, this seems impossible. The article as it stands could come from Poidimani's own website! - Nunh-huh 20:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nunh-huh is the typical example of user that with his groundless certainties thinks to know the truth (and the unique truth). He can seem a Stair Sainty disciple and he can spit out sentences only reading and founded on a web-site . For this web site dom Rosario has sued the owner of this web-page(Guy Stair Sainty) alleging libel against this person(also member of an association where one of patron is also Duarte Pio of Braganza, and consequently is not a impartial scholar of dynastic matter in the our argument)and in november will start the case against Stair Sainty. So Nunh-huh please don't judge you because there is a impartial tribunal that will judge this. Manuel 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please. Anyone so silly as to sue a website (or whose "candidacy" is so weak that he feels he has to sue a website) can hardly expect to be taken seriously as a candidate for heir to the "throne" of Portugal. - Nunh-huh 07:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But only a sentence of a impartial tribunal can confirm the autenticity of all the documents present in the web site www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org . The scholar of dynastic matter Stair Sainty( he is not a historian because a historian judge only after check the autenticity of all the documents and this is not the case of Sainty) found his certainties on the falsity and lie of these documents. Only a defenitive sentence can prove the superficiality of this scholar and can prove the close relation that this person has with Duarte Pio of Braganza.  Manuel 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Their authenticity can't be confirmed because the originals don't exist, as far as can be determined. Setting aside the issue of "Maria Pia's" natural birth, her supposed legitimation/elevation as an Infanta of Portugal is based upon a single typewritten document, dated 1959, purporting (on the authority of the lady herself) to be a transcription of the Royal document. The original has never been produced, nor evidence brought forth (e.g., from the Royal Archives) to corroborate it; indeed, while I'm not familiar with the various Portugese constitutions of the time, I find it difficult to believe that the King had the power to unilaterally confer succession privileges. There are reasons why this claim is not taken seriously, and the supposed ill-will of Miguelists has nothing to do with it. (Side note: I don't know precisely what litigation is in hand, but Mr. Sainty has won the initial round; here is a transcript in Italian.)Choess 00:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'll trust Muriel's judgement on this matter, and at any rate, if we included every self-appointed pretender to every throne, vacant or otherwise, the list would be endlessly long.  I have no problem with including pretenders if they are publicly known as such, but this one isn't.  David Cannon 22:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't include any pretender to any throne,because in this case there are jurisdictional sentence ,,,,historicans,,,,,,.... and many monarchic supporters that consider dom Rosario the only legitimate and lawful duke of Braganza.Manuel 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The   above are mine. David Cannon 10:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * See above the  Manuel 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Hilda Toledano. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Zoe (Otherwise, Delete)--Apyule 07:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm open to redirecting "Rosario Poidimani" to Hilda Toledano and adding a section there, but it should clearly indicate that Rosario's claims are not recognized outside of his circle of friends. Choess 00:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Pretenders (legitimate or otherwise) are interesting in their own right and noteworthy. Look at the controversy this article generated!  Noteworthy, IMHO. 208.27.111.121 17:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This pretender is only mentioned in 2 places: his own pages and wikipedia mirrors. He is non-verifiable. muriel@pt 20:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The right of this pretender derive from the lawful decision of Maria Pia of Braganza, already recognized by many neutral historical international encyclopedias. Manuel 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, this pretender is only mentioned in 2 places: his own pages and wikipedia mirrors. He is non-verifiable. muriel@pt 11:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This particularly impostor's claim to the throne is so patently ridiculous, and his notability so questionable, that I can't see any value to this page.  BTW, in case anyone is confused, this guy is not the same person as the Dom Duarte, Duke of Braganza, the generally recognized pretender to the Portuguese throne.  This is just some random Italian dude who claims that he should be King of Portugal because a crazy old lady who claimed to be, but was not, the illegitimate daughter of one of the later kings of Portugal, supposedly "abdicated" in his favor.  We have an article on said old lady, Hilda Toledano, who is, I suppose vaguely notable.  Any information on this gentleman can be contained at her article, if it is absolutely necessary. john k 03:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I’ve argued about this also in wiki.pt, and therefore I decided to vote it here. The article is clearly publicity, and the claims of that gentleman simply a non-sense. Just like Muriel says, producing an internet page does not produce a truth. Anyone of us could also claim to be an illegitimate son of an old Portuguese king, forge a genealogy and other evidences, and hence declares to be a claimant to the duchy of Braganza and the Portuguese crown… Quite easy, don’t you think? Another option (which I suggested in wiki.pt) is to redirect the page to claimants of the Duchy of Braganza and then protect it to avoid its recreation or further vandalism against it… --Brian Boru 15:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Where there is any substance or interest in a pretender to a title we might as well have them in. However, I concur with the micronation analogy. The Land 15:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As embarassing this person is, why is he not warranted to have an article? I don't think this work should be deleted, as ridiculous this person might be. There are enough articles of other pretenders, look up that famous "Emperor of the United States". Gryffindor [[Image:Flag of Austria (state).svg|20px]] 20:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Dear Gryffindor, its not the same thing. Rosario only appears in his own net pages and wikipedia mirrors. He is using wikipedia as a platform of propaganda. He is non-verifiable. We cant allow this. muriel@pt 11:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Muriel, only your attempt to hide and obstruct the knowledge of this pretender is a platform of antidemocratic propoganda in favour of Duarte Pio. And this is not impartial for a democratic encyclopedia as Wikipedia. We cant allow this. Manuel 8 October 2005 (UTC
 * Manuel, Duarte Pio is verifiable. Dont even try to dispute this - if nothing else stands for you, try checking the guest list for the wedding of Felipe, Prince of Asturias. Rosario only appears in your sites and in wikipedia mirrors. I personally couldnt care less for Duarte Pio and monarchy in Portugal or wherever. What i dont want is wikipedia to be the sole reference of obscure pretenders, micronations, clubs, writers, singers, etc etc. muriel@pt 14:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Muriel, Rosario is a obscure pretender in your consideration. You are not a impartial judge that can pass judment about this. Rosario has many monarchic supporters and jurisdictional recognitions of many Sovereign States.This is the most important check about his pretender rights.Manuel 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia should not allow itself to be used by this person to lend spurious credence to his claims. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:17, 14 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.