Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah


 * 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   no consensus. Just because this individual has made unverified claims doesn't mean that his article contains unverified claims. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

See Articles for deletion/Jerry Remigius Kanagarajah. There may be more claims of notability, but the whole thing is still just a vanity hoax. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What aspect of the article is a hoax? He was certainly one of the three stars of the recent BBC show "Undercover Princes", that's certainly true (see here).  If his claims to a royal title are disputed, then couldn't that simply be noted in the article?  If he doesn't merit a standalone article based on his other claims to notability, then the article should at least be redirected to the TV show he prominently featured in..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 22:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not finding many sources but I'm finding some and they seem to all back up the material. I'm also finding nothing that says this is a hoax.  Here is a source that does not mention "The Undercover Princes" (which seems to have attracted the most attention for this guy) and that covers this man in much more detail: .  Remember...wikipedia's standards are verifiability, not truth.  The source I gave does mention potential controversy around the authenticity of this guy's claim, so we should include that in the article.  Cazort (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - It's poorly sourced contentious material about a living person. Straight forward deletion.  --Rob (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete To clarify, the objection to this article is not that it is a "hoax", but rather that Mr Kanagarajah's claims are absurd. There have been no kings or princes of Jaffna since 1619 CE. It is absurd for someone to lay claim to a title that became extinct nearly 400 years ago. Furthermore, even if there are surviving descendants of the Jaffna royal family, Sri Lanka is a Democratic Socialist Republic - and therefore does not recognise titles of nobility, least of all titles that have long since become obsolete (when the royal family was deposed by the Portuguses in 1619, the titles became extinct - they did not fall into abeyance awaiting to be reclaimed by a man in 2003). In addition, Mr Kanagarajah has not been able to produce a complete family tree tracing father-son descent from any of the Arya Chakravarti kings, so even his claim of being a descendant of the Jaffna royal family is tenuous. An individual's decision to lay claim to a throne that has ceased to exist for several centuries by constructing a website does not warrant a wikipedia article, let alone an article which appears to recognise his claim to the dubious title "Prince" in its heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.164.19 (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Find sources saying what you're saying (I can't find them, honestly!) and you will have grounds to include this material in the article. But this is not an argument for deletion--there are sources for this article, and fairly mainstream ones.  Yes, I don't think anyone takes him terribly seriously...but that's not what notability is about.  Cazort (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cazort, a cursory glance at the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffna_Kingdom will verify that the Jaffna kingdom came to an end in 1619. A glance at Mr Kanagarajah's personal website http://www.jaffnaroyalfamily.org/royalfamily.php will reveal that he laid claimed to the title in 2003. Further, an examination of the poorly constructed and sourced genealogical chart he provides on the same website will reveal that he cannot uncontroversially trace father-son descent from any of the Jaffna kings (note that the chart is devoid of dates). Furthermore, Sri Lanka is currently in a state of civil war, with Tamil separatists fighting the Sri Lankan government for independence - this individual is attempting to restore the monarchy in Jaffna (this came up in an episode of Undercover Princes). Understandably, many find to be in very poor taste, especially in a time of heightened national tention. In addition, the article's very title is controversial as it appears to affirm his dubious claim to the title "prince".


 * Honestly take the time to read the wiki entry on the Jaffna kingdom, his genealogical charts, and the claims he makes on his personal website. I'm astounded that you weren't able to find sources I mention above especially when most of the links appear on Mr Kanagarajah's wiki entry. Regarding the charts, Rohan Titus (an Australian lawyer and genealogist, who is also a fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society) corresponded with Mr Kanagarajah in the early days and assisted him with piecing toegether a complete chart, but dismissed his claims when the evidence didn't support his claims - see http://ceylontamils.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=9 for an informal discussion on this, you could also try contacting Mr Titus through the website for more information.
 * I hope that helps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.138.253 (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the person, however dubious his claims are, was brought into the public focus by BBC (although in comedy-ish style), hence public deserves to have an encyclopedic article available. Twri (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Of the ~50 unique google hits for this guy, the only good sources are the ones mentioned so far. Those would be an entertainment piece from a BBC syndicate (and a piece from The Independent that only advertises it) and a short biography in The Nation. I wouldn't really recall the latter as an obviously reliable source, given it's greater than normal biases, coupled to the complete lack of transparency on its editorial process. So there has been no substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. There has been substantial coverage in a dubious source, and an entertainment piece from another source. These are apparently the only times this man has ever been mentioned outside of blogs and his own writings, or trivial lists of "exiled royalty" on unreliable websites. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the man was foolish enough on the TV series. These would-be Royals need to be known about so we can avoid them.Sjoh0050 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Twri (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no sources that I would consider reliable in the sense of having independently examined this guy's claims. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your agrument is misdirected. Wikipedia is not in the business of verification of people's claims about themselves. He may claim he was born on the Moon, there are still his claim and it need not to be verified that he was indeed born on the Moon. The only thing to be verified is that he indeed claimed it, and the encyclopedic phrase must be "He claims that he was born on the Moon", rather than "He was born on the Moon". Twri (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2009 (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.