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 of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: Article was nominated for deletion in 2004 with no concensus reached]. Not a real nation, and in essence an internet club. I contend that WP:WEB should apply. 752 or 596 Google hits. 35 posts on official forum. Seems to me to be a big boys' version of something made up in school. Delete kingboyk 23:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Micronations seem to be an attempt to pretend notability where none exists: few, if any, are anythign other then egregious vanity. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JzG, destroyer of micronations. Adrian Lamo · 23:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable micronation. --Billpg 00:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How is it notable? And how can it be a micronation if it doesn't even exist? It's a website and should be evaluated as such, imho. --kingboyk 00:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The number of news references listed (if real). --Billpg 00:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this one. NN political fringe group. youngamerican (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Ten real world media coverage references. It clearly exists as an organization which has been active for some time in the real world, though not a territorial claim. There seems to be a bizarre anti-micronational wiki page vendetta brewing here. Georgewilliamherbert 00:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all. You'll see I've actually cleaned a lot of them up, and spent a great deal of time on it. However, I would concede one thing: that the label micronation doesn't help. It's too broad. If these things were labelled as political movements or clubs they might stand a better chance. As it is, when lumped in with Sealand or Republic of Minerva which has/had territory, Hutt River Province which has gained legendary status in Australia, and curious historical anomalies such as Lundy or Republic of Indian Stream, entities such as this come across as vanity and cruft personified. --kingboyk 00:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, a small wave of these AFDs against micronations, starting with the one User:Gene Poole founded and right after his apparently controversial Request for Adminship? There are only about six dots here to draw the lines between, and the pattern is sort of obvious. Either this is some sort of retaliatory action, or the timing is so ludicrously coincidental that nobody's going to believe otherwise. If you are serious, I strongly urge you to back off AFDing these and try and make a case on talk pages. Georgewilliamherbert 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Principality of Freedonia for deletion first, having stumbled into the micronation area yesterday via Sealand, the sub pages of which I have cleaned up immensely. I then came to Empire of Atlantium. Well aware of the controversy, I asked for Guy's opinion on whether it would be wise to delete it given the past controversy and that exactly these kind of comments would arise. Based on his advice, as an admin and a user I trust, and given my further research and contemplation I went ahead. This is all quite transparent and is detailed on User_talk:JzG.

Unfortunately, Guy has made a bit of a balls up by then proceeding to nominate a truck load of others including the famous Hutt River Province. I knew nothing about that and have voted delete. The other nominations are his, not mine, no doubt inspired by my question to him. I have nothing to do with those nominations, and was taken by surprise.

You will see from edit histories that we are both neutral editors with a strong distaste for cruft and vanity articles. That's the only agenda here. I would respectfully suggest therefore that you assume good faith, check out our edit histories, and comment on the proposed deletions based on the merit of the articles and the deletion arguments and nothing else!

That's my final word on conspiracy. I am a good, solid, neutral editor and my history shows that. --kingboyk 01:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Freedonia; it's notable for a real-world tragedy associated with one of their land purchase attempts.

The Irony here is that you two have started out by (assume good faith) accidentally hitting a bunch of the more notable and well known micronational pages, and Gene's; Gene has also been fairly active in trying to keep truly not-notable micronations (that truly are nothing more than just a web presence, etc) from getting pages or excess coverage in the main Micronation article.

I am not a micronation enthusiast; I don't belong to any and merely find it an interesting subject, combining aspects of small group and volunteer group dynamics with geopolitics and the evolving definitions of what soverignty means in the modern world. I have no problem with the premise that there are internet-only and non-notable micronations not worthy of WP entries. I believe that Gene would agree with that premise as well, and I think he's been actively working within the micronation article spaces to try and accomplish that, though from the standpoint of a micronation member/founder/enthusiast. Though personally involved, his NPOV seems to stay in good shape.

If this is indeed a serious interest in cleaning up the micronations section of WP, I submit to you that a bunch of AFDs are the wrong approach. I also submit to you that given the AFDs so far, there is an issue with identifying the level of notability of various articles. Purely in-wikipedia and google search sources aren't necessarily good enough. I suggest that engaging on say Talk:Micronation to identify consistent and community agreeable notability standards is a good course, rather than continuing to AFD things. Georgewilliamherbert 01:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your words are reasonable and I take your point. However, AFD is the best way we have of determining these as a community. I've addressed your more specific point at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Freedonia. --kingboyk 02:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable at all. FCYTravis 01:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, less than a 1,000 google hits. Arbustoo 02:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This appears to be something that has gathered multiple mentions in major media over an extneded period of time. How can we even consider deleting it? - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC) brenneman isn't saying "keep" because this isn't a vote and his opinon is clear. [reply]
• Delete, Comment I pose that we should require a micronation to actually be both micro and a nation. Lacking territory of any size, this is neither. Adrian Lamo · 03:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You've voted twice. --kingboyk 03:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's how they taught me in Chicago ;x Adrian Lamo · 04:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The number of articles about it specifically and the number of articles that mention it while covering the overall phenomenon suggest sufficient notability. (notoriety, I guess, rather than laudatory praise). This article (and the arguments given about its notability) seems a textbook example of why the Google test does not always reliably work to judge notability. I'm at a loss as to some of these nominations. However, suggesting that there's a vendetta brewing against micronations does seem to be stretching the point a bit, lets assume good faith. Lar is saying "Keep" even though this isn't a vote because sometimes he fears his opinion isn't clear! ++Lar: t/c 05:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - my instincts tell me this is little more than an elaborate hoax (the nation, not the article), and not of the same notability as Hutt River Province, etc. However, the references prove that it is, at least marginally, notable. --djrobgordon 07:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, does not purport to have any real territory, long history. Plenty of sources. Lankiveil 00:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete all micronations unless they have a significant history and notability. This does not, in my opinion. Stifle 02:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't believe this is even a micronation, it's just a website. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, This is clearly a one man operation pretending to be a micronation. Perhaps if it is deleted, the single person, that imagines it to become something more, will be less vicious in his POV warring over real micronations. Considering Gene_Pooley and his Centauri sock, as the "emperor" of this dream have gotten some publicity, there could be an article about him instead, mentioning his dreamed of "empire". Harvardy 08:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard. Second edit by this editor. --Gene_poole 11:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's the lovely and talented Wik returning yet again. Not no mo'. He go bye-bye. - Lucky 6.9 03:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it that time of year again already? Keep. --Gene_poole 11:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you like to declare an interest? I'm not doubting your right to have a say, but it's usual to declare one's personal interest I would have thought. --kingboyk 21:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I "have an interest". After 4 attempted AFDs of this article and more than 3 years of orchestrated harrassment by Wik and Samboy I'm surprised there's anyone left on the planet who hasn't been told at least half a dozen times. Daily. At length. With links. In 3 languages (not including sign language and smoke signals). --Gene_poole 01:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per external news refs and survival of previous AfDs. Turnstep 18:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, what is this? some sort of mad bandwagon trying to delete all micronation articles? This has been referenced already in the media and is notable as stated above. Piecraft 18:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Article is notable. It certainly is verifiable. Brokenfrog 01:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, has media coverage. Kappa 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible keep. This shouldn't even be up for discussion. - Lucky 6.9 03:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The 9 delete voters so far would presumably disagree with that assertion. --kingboyk 03:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 8 actually. Wik isn't permitted to vote. --Gene_poole 04:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Righto, checked his edit history and I agree it's not a valid vote. --kingboyk 04:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unlike some of the other imaginary countries with articles, this one isn't particularly notable. Thumbelina 05:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some micronations are notable, Sealand was even a featured article, I believe. But there are "vanity" micronations, and I think this one is one of them. Ifnord 14:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This has been covered in the media. It may be just a micronation, folks, but it's a famous micronation. Wiwaxia 07:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.