This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 keep the revised version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy and validaity of claim is disputed (see original talk page.) Not enough evidence to justify speedy. Manning 08:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Sounds very much like false pretender (of Alexis Brimeyer variety) but not notable as such (possibly just starting). Not to mention that the talk page effectively claims that all royal families have "serbian ancestry", meaning it is possibly serbian-nationalist propaganda. Dubious at best - Skysmith 08:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough for me. Nationalist cruft (and the fact that Brimeyer claimed to be king of Yugoslavia) aroused my suspicions. No vote - Skysmith 09:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a real person [1] who is a real prince of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was a monarchy in the first part of the 20th century and the descendents of the royal family have kept their titles. Nothing to dispute here. He's not claiming to be the real king or anything. The "NONSENS" in the talk page referred to Dimitri being the son of Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia, which he isn't (he is the son of another Alexander). He is, I believe, the crown prince's second cousin third cousin. I don't know why there is a rant about ancient Serbian kings in the discussion page. --Cam 15:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Added links and removed the nationalist cruft. --Cam 15:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now. Move the link to "External link" section, add category if possible. Pavel Vozenilek 20:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I looked up the royal lineage of the Kings of Yugoslavia in Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe by Jìŕí Louda and Michael Maclagan, and this information is there. I noticed that the link cited by User:Cam above also makes its claim based on the second edition of the same work. John Barleycorn 23:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. don´t see why this article should be deleted... Antares911 16:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In this revision, it could stay and it is correct, in spite of content of discussion page. So, keep it. --Ninam 01:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Link moved to External Links section as suggested above. --Cam 03:33, July 21, 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.