Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Lao Government in Exile

Royal Lao Government in Exile
An organisation which purports to be an alternative royalist government of Laos. It appears to be appears to be one year old, i.e it was created 28 years after the abdication of the last King. It has been ridiculed on Usenet. This is yet again by User:Jimmyvanthach who has been banned from editing articles on royalist movements in Vietnam by the arbcom for propagandizing. Jimmy aggressively removed the tag too (and then the vfd tag). This is not Vietnam, but his action is against the spirit if not the letter of the arbcom ruling. Dunc|&#9786; 18:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

aggressive excuse me Duncharris using the words "jimmybullshit" against me on wikipedia
I beg your pardon ? You Duncharris, have been using curse words against me,

You should be banned and it is evidenced in a my userpage of your language saying

"Jimmybullshit"

Did you say that Duncharris ?

The Arbcom suggested that I add to other subjects, noting to do with Vietnam.

If the Arbcom suggested ALL royalty on wikipedia, but they did not.

You have not right to give your statement well I interpret

"This is not Vietnam, but his action is against the spirit if not the letter of the arbcom ruling."

Having a Usenet as a basis of facts is not viable.

I ask all Wikipedia members to review the official website of the

Royal Lao Government in Exile and you be the judge.


 * The Royal Lao Government in Exile Official Site

--Jimmyvanthach 19:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Some further comments by Jimmyvanthach that are not relevant to the article's future inclusion have been moved to the talk page. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 00:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)''

---


 * KEEP The Royal Lao Government in Exile has alot of potential to grow into a good article about information about their political organization.--Jimmyvanthach 19:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and request ArbCom ban Jimmy from Laos-related topics as well as Vietnam. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 19:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd go as far to say ban him from Southeast-Asian-related topics, because it's quite obvious that he's looking for a loophole. Mike H 20:34, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: The persual of a narrow interest that will misinform readers. Essentially, advertising and advocacy, both of which are not allowed. Geogre 19:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting, notable, even if it is ridiculed.  Inclusion is not, in and of itself, endorsement.  --L33tminion | (talk) 19:59, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. An article on Laotian politics from someone who wrote such misleading things about Vietnamese politics that he is no longer permitted to write about it. Somehow I don't think we can trust this information. [[User:Livajo|&#21147;&#20255;|&#9786;]] 21:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unless convincingly confirmed by someone known to be a neutral, reliable, well-informed third party; for example, a university professor with a telephone number listed at the university's website. (Jimmyvanthach has almost certainly masqueraded as Tran Van Ba so establishment of the identity of anyone claiming to verify this information is essential). The USENET thread referenced is convincing evidence to me that the article is not a straightforward piece of factual information. The USENET poster who claims to have paid $999 for an advisory position to this government in exile may be not be truthful, but it at least raises the question whether the article's purpose is more sinister than merely micronation-like vanity. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, I suppose. If another user can vouch for the content and its notability, I'll change my vote. But it also would not be fair to punish Jimmy for writing about Laotian politics just because he was banned from editing on Vietnamese politics. Everyking 22:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, "Royal Lao Government in Exile" gets 40 Google hits. - SimonP 03:05, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * delete arbcom should consider blocking this Jimmy chap for a month or two.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. They don't seem to have any fame yet. Jeltz 10:18, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)