Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. My personal sympathies lie towards deletion here, but I just don't see where we've got anything approaching agreement to do that. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I just don't see anything noteworthy. Slightly eccentric Sydney pensioner declares his farm to be sovereign territory. Gets into a few scrapes with the law. Is mentioned in Sydney Morning Herald 3 times. Had no sovereignty, not recognised by any government, totally unnotable. Delete kingboyk 05:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nobody cares now, let alone 100 years from now (Khan 05:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep(see below) Seems to satisfy all three suggested criteria here: Category_talk:Micronations, at least weakly. ++Lar: t/c 06:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would gently point out that those criteria have been edited by one user only. They're not policy, is what I'm trying to say. --kingboyk 06:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I agree they're not policy. Never said they were. However they're reasonable, IMHO, and I support their use as an evaluation mechanism, and am basing my comments in the various article AfDs in the great Micronations
deletion/improvement drive of 2006 on them. If you think they're not good criteria you could always work to improve them, right? ++Lar: t/c 06:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say they are or are not good criteria, I'm just pointing out we don't have a policy. --kingboyk 07:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. But it sure read like you were casting aspersions in your first comment, especially since I used the term "suggested criteria" rather than "policy". Perhaps you'll want to be more careful in your wording going forward to avoid even the appearance of not assuming good faith. But more to the point, I'll repeat my implied question: do you think they're useful criteria or not? If not, you should comment on them, in the appropriate place, I think. If so, then don't you agree they suggest keep for this article, and several others you nominated? ++Lar: t/c 07:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how gently pointing out they are not policy can be taken as not assuming good faith. I have absolutely no doubt about your good faith whatsoever; I trust you have no doubt in mine. To answer your question, I don't accept those recommendations as policy, hence my nomination. We've both had our say and I shall keep quiet on the issue now. --kingboyk 07:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm interested to know how your 2 mutually exclusive positions on this matter can be reconciled with an assumption of good faith. --Centauri 07:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I fear you've chosen to answer a question I did not ask. I didn't ask whether you accept them as policy, I asked if you think they're useful criteria. Not everything useful has to be policy. Mixing the two concepts up as you appear to have done, is what is, to my view anyway, giving the appearance of a lack of good faith, by appearing to cast aspersions on my use of them for invalid reasons (remember, I declaimed them as merely suggested criteria). I hope that clears up why I have concerns about the way you worded it, and apologise if not. ++Lar: t/c 07:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise then. I've been up all night so failed to grasp your point. As for the criteria, no I don't agree with them in their entirety but I think they could be a useful starting point. I think debate on that issue ought to continue elsewhere. Again apologies for any misunderstanding, I don't want to fight over this, I really see no point in that. We are all here to improve Wikipedia, after all. --kingboyk 07:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I agree they're not policy. Never said they were. However they're reasonable, IMHO, and I support their use as an evaluation mechanism, and am basing my comments in the various article AfDs in the great Micronations
- Keep Seems to meet relevant standards. --AlexWCovington (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A state in the mind of its creator only. The criteria need work. 440 Google hits [1].
No Google book references [2]. and unknown to Google Scholar [3]. The Sydney Morning Herald articles verify it but it fails my notability test. Capitalistroadster 09:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 09:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
- Keep per Lar and Alexwcovington. --Billpg 12:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - At this point, I agree with the proposed standards, and this article seems to meet them sufficiently at this time. Georgewilliamherbert 19:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet numbers 1 and 2? All we have are references from the Sydney Morning Herald, a fine newspaper certainly, but a regional one and one with a seeming penchant for micronation stories. This falls way below the bar proposed in points 1 and 2, unless there are other sources which haven't been listed in the article. (If there are, please insert them. I'm not trying to delete for the sake of it). Point 3 I feel is too vague with it's either/or, and this 'micronation' only meets it by virtue of having been involved in court cases. I'll make my point about that on the talk page. --kingboyk 19:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am pretty sure that I've seen the Syndey Morning Herald at some international oriented newsstands in California in the US and an Australian oriented shop in Vancouver in Canada, though I can't say as I bought it or have photos of it there. That's three countries, if my memory is correct. If it gets that much coverage it's likely also in England and perhaps other places. I can't disagree that the SMH seems to have a penchant for covering micronations, but it also seems like Australia has a penchant for creating them, as a national quirk. It might be interesting to study whether the press coverage is disproportionate for the amount of activity actually going on, but for now it seems sufficient to me. Your mileage may vary, this posting should not be used as a control mechanism for air traffic control or nuclear facilities. Georgewilliamherbert 19:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's 3 countries. That's a very fine and respected newspaper from one country being sold overseas for expats, as happens with all of the famous papers (London Times, Wall St Journal etc). Lol about ATC and nuclear facilities and a very good point. We're probably all taking this a tad too seriously :) Genuine smile from me! --kingboyk 20:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - satisfied them too weakly I think.... changed my thinking from the above after doing a fair bit of digging (it's amazing how many copies of Wikipedia text are out there now!!!).. I found evidence this state grants medals, honors, and possibly degrees, and added that stuff to the article. But I could not find more than that... I'm coming around to thinking that this one should be in a Minor Micronations article along with a few others. Of all the micronations out there, maybe only 10 or so deserve articles of their own. Does this one make the top ten? Now I'm thinking maybe not... so I changed my thinking. Wow that was longwinded! Deal! However I could still be convinced to change BACK. Meanwhile, people might want to consider participating in this discussion: Category talk:Micronations where some more concrete guidelines may be formed. So far only user:kingboyk and I have been talking... we have some reasonable stuff I think but need more thoughts from others. ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a micronation is what it is, and these are all notable. Piecraft 18:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, this is a notable micronation. Brokenfrog 01:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete all micronations. Nominator says it all. Stifle 02:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Some micronations deserve to be documented on Wikipedia for their noteworthiness (such as Hutt River). Others, such as this one, are not, due to their complete lack of noteworthiness. --Roisterer 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only a few micronations are notable - this one is not - else we will become advertising space to people who refuse to pay taxes.Blnguyen 07:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As this page indicates, it has issued real money and flags and been interviewed and featured in the media. Wiwaxia 07:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've "issued" money in year 7 too. i've been interviewed by people too. It's just too non-notable. --Sumple (Talk) 22:00, 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.