Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire of Atlantium (2nd nomination)

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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 18:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity article for a non-notable fake country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FairHair (talk • contribs)

previous nomination

• Close as bad faith nom / Keep - FairHair is making this nomination in bad faith, in retribution against User:Gene Poole over incidents related to Conch Republic over the last several days, which have attracted administrator attention [1] and required an ANI report [2]. This article is about a micronation, not a country, and the article is clear in stating that it's a micronation and meets the criteria used for determining if micronations are notable enough. Georgewilliamherbert 18:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what exactly is the criteria established for Micronation notablity? --- The Bethling^(Talk) 07:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC):[reply]

reply There isn't an established criteria, there is however a working proposal developed by User:Gene Poole Bo 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That proposed guideline is what has been used repeatedly to nuke people's web-only, or thought-up-between-high-school-classes, Micronation articles. To meet the criteria, the Micronation has to have widespread press coverage, and a real-world presence of some sort (even if that's souvenier material production). One could posit higher criteria (some sort of actual territory claim) but there seems little point; the ones that have a real world presence of any sort and press coverage is a small enough group, all of which now have WP articles. Very few below that threshold do. Sealand and Hutt River Province are not the only Micronations of note. Georgewilliamherbert 00:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's WAR between micronations!! Prince Christopher I of Vikesland also recently tried his hand at provocative brinkmanship against Atlantium over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Principality_of_Vikesland. As a representative of a non-micronation uh... nation, I'll be renominating Atlantium for afd as something made up in a living room once the little skirmish blows over ( I was going to anyway after Prince Christopher's subtle gambit, but it looks like a Conch Republic operative beat me to it). Ready the peacekeeping forces! Or Delete as not encyclopedically notable and failing WP:NFT if this current afd goes ahead. Bwithh 19:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Micronations are some bullshit. john k 20:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some micronations on Wikipedia have been noticed (not recognized) by real governments, viz. Sealand, Republic of Minerva. Who are you to say they're bullshit? Gazpacho 03:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is notable but block Gene_Poole and FairHair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddulany (talk • contribs)
• Keep The Empire of Atlantium is Notable, the politics shouldn't matter Bo 21:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verifiable. Gazpacho 03:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lonely Planet has recently released a guide to Micronations[3] which includes Atlantium. This book therefore offers both notability and verifiability to many of these pseudo-states.Crico 05:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice , but Amazon describes that book as a "humourous mock guidebook"[4]. Bwithh 17:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Reply micornations not taken seriously by the vast majority of the world, of course the guide is a mockery! Bo 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's a humorous mock guidebook, but so are Molvania and Phaic Tan and they warrant a Wikipedia article. WP:NFT states that something made up one afternoon in school can be included in Wikipedia if someone researches it thoroughly and writes a book, academic paper or magazine article about it. The Lonely Planet book does that for many of these places so that should be the end of the argument. It doesn't really matter whether they're bullshit or not. Crico 06:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molvanian and Phaic Tan are parody creations by professional comic writers. Things like Vikesland and Atlantium appear to be serious creations by amateur eccentrics (to put it politely). Bwithh 17:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. I really have trouble seeing how these micronations are more notable than the "country" my friends created back in high school (perhaps if the web had been around things would different :), and WP:NFT seems like such a natural response. However given the multiple references and the linked article it looks like the Empire has passed my threshold for notablity. -- The Bethling^(Talk) 07:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious bad faith nomination. For the record it's also the sixth time it's been nominated since 2002 - having survived all previous attempts - so surely some sort of double, triple (or more) jeopardy rule should apply - otherwise this silliness is going to continue repeating itself every time some noob gets a bee in their bonnet because they don't understand Wikipedia policies and decide that Gene_Poole is the devil incarnate, and the cause of all their woes. --Gene_poole 08:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. So long as this article subject has tenuous credibility at best, it's fair game under WP:CCC Bwithh 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NFT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic nonsense. - Marc Averette 23:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: FairHair has been accused of being a sockpuppet of Marc Averette by Georgewilliamherbert, based on a history of suspiciously similar argumentative editing behaviour. --Gene_poole 13:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Georgewilliamherbert has been accused of being sockpuppets of Centauri and Gene_Poole by Averette, based on a history of suspiciously similar argumentative editing behavior. - Marc Averette 13:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a vanity article, largely written by the person who runs the online club, and which has led to a great deal of infighting and other nonsense. Jonathunder 18:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Bad faith nomination per User:Georgewilliamherbert. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 21:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Someone renominating an article for deletion should be required to notify everyone who voted or commented on any previous proposal for deletion. JamesMLane t c 03:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have a saved island/city/nation Simcity game on my Playstation that I call Averetteville. Should that get an article? - Marc Averette 18:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not a micronation (as noted above), so some other indication of notability must be in the article. Looking closely, I don't think the one column newspaper article qualifies. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plenty of good references for my liking. What's changed since the last X number of times this has come up for deletion? Lankiveil 00:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, I voted keep last time, I vote again to keep it. Piecraft 01:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What Piecraft said. I have a feeling that the nominator may very well be Wik/Gzornenplatz/NoPuzzleStranger. Absolute bad faith nomination. - Lucky 6.9 04:11, 8 October 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.