Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 19

Salisbury Catholic Parish SA (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The 10th December 2017 I wrote an Article about the Salisbury Catholic Parish, but Jimfbleak deleted it arguing advertising and promotional content. I explained to him that my intention was not to promote anything at all, but to insert historic information from the Salisbury area, but even because the Article was deleted before I had finished loading all the information. I wrote it again and the 17 December 2017, it was deleted again because of copyrights' infringements. The allegedly source with the problem was a Heritage survey that is in the website of the City of Salisbury Council, which is the local authority. The Survey basically recognises that the old church of St Augustine is a Heritage Building. The information that I referred to is historic and basically refers to dates. The website of the council is an .gov webpage. However, the 17 December both the Article and the talk page were already deleted. I did not have time to comment further; there were no more alternatives explored and no time for more people to post their opinion. as I said before, my intention was not to promote anything at all, but to disclose public historic information, because everybody in the vicinity has an idea of these facts. I am more than happy to edit or delete any content that is promotional, as well as any content that may cause a problem of copyrights, but I believe that the survey from 1991 is not a problem as it is of public access on a government site and everybody can consult it, but also because is only referring to the fact that the government has considered the old church as a Heritage Building and to some other historic facts that nobody can own or of public domain. Overturn - If any problem in this Article I am happy to work collaboratively to amend any error in this Article that is causing all this grievance about advertising and copyrights. Arangel1970 (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, I can find no indication that the material in question is released to the public domain. Just being on a government website, or accessible to the general public, does not render something public domain. Even the US federal government, which releases all its own work to the public domain, sometimes uses copyrighted material on government websites. Regardless of any other considerations, we can't restore copy-pasted material without explicit evidence that this particular document is unquestionably in the public domain. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion - Thank you for your comments Seraphimblade; however, the Survey is in the following webpage, please have a look to this: https://data.environment.sa.gov.au/SearchCenter/results.aspx?k=Salisbury And at the bottom of that page, there is an emblem/logo which states that the content of this website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence. All other rights are reserved. If you click on the Creative Commons logo, it takes you straight to the following website: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Therein, it is asserted that: ... "You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially." "Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." And in the page 2 of the Survey, there is the following legend: "The heritage survey should be publicised to increase interest in the preservation of Salisbury's character and heritage". Thank you and regards, Arangel1970 (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

While it's true the site says that, the report itself ([1]) states that it was "commissioned" from private consultants. Unless the agreement with the consultants provided for CC-BY licensing, or assigned copyright to the same people who posted it on that website, they lack the authority to license it that way. The document itself does not say that it's CC licensed. The best we can say is that it might be freely licensed, but "might" isn't good enough. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, allow re-creation. One big non-problem. A beginner mistake of copying or too-close paraphrasing, it is not OK and must be deleted. Just start again, ensuring that you are using multiple independent sources (at least two). We can discuss the overly-promotional issues of the page once the copyright infringement issues are gone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore clear and unmistakable case of compatible license. A site that says it is licensing itself by ac compatible license is believed , it is taken that it has the rights it asserts to have. Many such sites, (such as US gov sites) have a small number of non-freematerial, copied by permission from others. For us.gov , these are mainly photographs used by explicit permission, or copies from elsewhere, used as documents or inserted by members of Congress into the Congressional Record. These are almost always identified as such. The government has a disclaimer that the might be others, because it cannot claim that all are actually free anymore than we can claim that everything in commons is free. In the absence of knowledge otherwise, we trust what people tell us. In this case if they say it was commissioned but also say it has a free license, we assume they have the rights to give the license. If the person they commissioned it from had not given them the rights, we assume they would say so :I can understand how we might sometimes not believe this is f we have reason to thing the person making the statements is irresponsible, such as known pirate websites, or a claim on a personal website for material that would from its nature be very unlikely to have such a license.

the wrong decision was initially made here, and it'sabsurd to pick at unlikely possibilities to justify it. I think we usually call it copyright paranoia. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn  If copyright was the problem, why was the entire article deleted?  I found a Google cache, and the one thing I saw to remove is the "vision" statement in the third paragraph, and there is a BLP violation (uncited material) further down.  Beyond that, this is an interesting collection of organizations dating from 1851.  Among other things it has a named cemetery, a college, two schools, and three mass centres.  I am not sure why they have the duplicates, so that aspect of the article could be improved.  It is also pretty much never the case that such a topic if non-notable would be deleted, as in this case the parish is part of the Archdiocese of Adelaide.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Even if the source wasn't compatibly licensed, I don't see where any revision of the article infringes it. It's a 417-page document, and searching it for likely phrases from the article hasn't turned up anything. A page number would've been nice.
  In any case, if restored, this is going to end up right back at AFD, and I don't see this surviving as a separate article there. You'd be better off putting the information directly into Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide, where it'll eventually end up anyway. —Cryptic 04:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, allow recreation per SmokeyJoe. I searched for some specific bits of text from the article. Searching for In 1882, £80 were set aside for the purchase of a bell and Bishop Reynolds bought it from Murphy's Foundry in Dublin. led me to this flickr page which quotes a 1925 publication. Also, searching for Andrew O'Leary and other early settlers carted with his bullocks the first stones for the erection of the church from the neighbouring hills got me to another flickr page which in turn quotes a 1926 publication. There's enough similarity of text here to make me uncomfortable that we're on the right side of the copyright question. I don't know if this is a notable topic or not, but I think the right thing to do would be to allow another attempt to write an article, but make sure the new version is scrupulous about having good sources, is written in a non-promotional style, and doesn't copy or closely paraphrase any existing text from those sources. Also, User:Arangel1970 should make a clear statement about any WP:COI they may or may not have. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monotronic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Appears to be no consensus but closed as delete without a reason given. The article was relisted 3 times due to a lack of opinions and closed with little discussion while few of the opinions were policy based. Rocckker13 (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin comment - I most certainly closed the AFD with a reason given: "Notability failed to be established by reliable sources (provided sources do not meet requirements of WP:RS nor WP:V)." The closing rationale is fully based on a complete review of the discussion compared to the wording of our policies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn on the grounds of no established consensus. The close was made after a number of relists with no clear consensus and one sourced opinion, all in the span of at most 4 minutes of deliberation according to your contributions page. There were 3 opinions present, a redirect, a delete, and a keep, and the page was talked about by a total of 5 unique persons. This does not constitute a delete. Further nobody on the page ever talked about which sources were bad. Was there not 1 of the bunch that was of any validity? What about the other several counts of Notability the page entity meets? Why after 3 relists with no consensus or substantial conversation did the page just get spiked? Rocckker13 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate vote from nom. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an official opinion, not a duplicate. You don't count the deletion review statement as a vote do you? Rocckker13 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse--Good close.Pretty excellent evaluation.If anybody wills, I can provide a detailed analysis of the sourcing and why it's crap.Winged Blades^Godric 10:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I disagree with some other users here. The sources were good and the discussion went on for too long without getting anywhere. Where was the consensus? MagicBlade31 (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reyk _YO! 20:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn No-Consensus Long and iterative relist period, lack of policy based argument, lack of general discussion. The close should have been No-Consensus under WP:NPASR. ElonTesla (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse. There was so little discussion, this could have reasonably been closed a number of different ways. Our goal here is to write an encyclopedia, not haggle over process, so I think the best way forward would be to restore the article to draft or user space and let somebody work on cleaning it up. It needs major editing to get rid of the trivia and promotional language, and finding better (better, not more) sources. Then, get some review via WP:AfC to verify that it really has been improved. While I've tempundeleted it for review, I'd recommend it not be immediately restored to mainspace because the writing is terrible.

BTW, in response to, nobody on the page ever talked about which sources were bad, well, this edit does go into detail about why some of the sources were not acceptable.

-- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think that this reaches a reasonable compromise and at least brings back the article to a communal space. I'd be more than happy to run it through an AFC review to get it the changes it needs to be considered widely acceptable. Rocckker13 (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, reasonable reading of the discussion and very much within admin discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus with WP:NPASR With respect to my colleagues above, I don't agree that "provided sources do not meet requirements of WP:RS nor WP:V" is a valid summary of the discussion. Since after the last sources were provided, there was no more discussion, this is either the closing admin's own assessment of the sources - making it a supervote - or a misreading of the discussion. Either way, the close does nto reflect the discussion. It's unfortunate that more discussion of the sources provided were in Rocckker13's second comment were not discussed but that alone is not a reason to close the discussion as "delete". Those arguing to endorse this close as "good" or "reasonable" should explain why ignoring a keep !vote that provided 31 potential(!) sources that were all not discussed afterwards (the comment Roy linked to above was about the first batch of links) is either "good" or a "reasonable reading of the discussion". I don't see it. And before anyone starts to discuss those links here: That's why I advocated WP:NPASR. DRV's job is only to assess the close based on the discussion, not to rehash the discussion here. Overturn it, take it to AFD again and hopefully next time around there will be more discussion. Regards SoWhy 15:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I’m sympathetic towards SoWhy’s stance, and likely would have no consensus closed this myself, but I think Coffee’s reading was reasonable and within his discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There may have been quantity on the "keep" side but only from one contributor and no sign of significant coverage by reliable sources. The Google News search was enough to doom the article. This band is not even the most notable thing with this name, losing out to a non-notable song by another only barely notable band. Strip away the non-RS coverage and the passing mentions. What is left? Little enough that it justifies both the result and the closing comment. What else could anybody do? Relist it yet again? The lack of interest in !voting shows the lack of interest in this non-notable subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of votes does not a delete make, we have a no consensus close for a reason. I would have loved to talk to you on the AFD page about this but you never posted there after making your initial post on November 25th. I did appreciate your opinion though, it was well reasoned and thoroughly stated.Rocckker13 (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I agree with the user above, no consensus would have been a better fit for a close. This is such a large discussion, the deletion one was so much tinier. Schracq (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Rocckker13 has canvassed users to this discussion from #wikipedia-en ^connect. Nihlus 04:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to #wikipedia-en ^connect with this exact statement "Any editors want to weigh in on a deletion review? I believe an admin closed an AFD as delete when the discussion warrants a no consensus close." in an attempt to garner discussion so that this review wouldn't relist 3 times with little participation like the AFD did. Full transparency, no result ask, just a link to the discussion so that more voices might be present. Rocckker13 (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I see general agreement from everyone except Rocckker13 (the page creator, whose canvassing on IRC I am responding to) that the references don't demonstrate notability, and no specific link is mentioned as refuting that. The massive list of references includes mostly crap like iTunes listings, ticket-sale pages, and pages that don't appear to mention Monotronic at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Nominating user has now erroneously brought this to the attention of the stewards. Nihlus 06:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking to find any reasonable governing authority to come in and analyze this discussion, the AFD, and the fact that you've followed me across wiki's. Rocckker13 (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I've directed Rocckker back here. Since quite a few people involved in this seem to have forgotten, Rocckker is a relatively new user with under 200 edits here who doesn't understand why his article was deleted. Instead of leaving menacing comments and accusing him of canvassing, maybe just explain why the article was deleted and show him the relevant policies? Wikipedia is a strange and magical place for new people, and I think that it's worth extending some courtesy and politeness to our newer users. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note A user has brought this discussion up in WP:DISCORD; I'm not sure if it's the nominator. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 08:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Coffee's closure simply draws the necessary consequences of policies. BTW in my experience "little discussion" is a generally a sign of lacking of notability, never the opposite. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case where does a no consensus ruling have its place? The AFD was posted for 33 days, if there was no major support on either side how does that turn into a definitive ruling? Isn't the job of the admin close in AFD to rule on the consensus of the discussion rather than super voting in favor of personal opinion through policy? Under the "How an AFD discussion is closed" section on Wikipedia: "An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus. For how to perform this, see WP:AFD/AI." and "If consensus seems unclear the outcome can be listed as No consensus (with no effect on the article's status) or the discussion may be relisted for further discussion." the second of which happened an uncommon 3 times. Rocckker13 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I checked 5 of the refs at random - they are a sea of nonsense. Typically in these cases the rest are similar and intended to obfuscate. The key overturn argument is that there were new references provided in the AFD that weren't taken into account, however they were presented in such a way as to make me think they are a part of the sea of nonsense. Fair close. Szzuk (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you didn't check the references and cast an opinion anyway? The key to the overturn isn't new references, it's 33 days of low participation discussion with exactly 3 separate opinions culminating in a delete. Rocckker13 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was responding to the only meaningful overturn vote in this DRV. This isn't a rerun of the AFD - I don't need to check any of the references at all! I did so to get a sense of the discussion and why it was closed as delete. Your reasoning that this was a bad close because of low participation is faulty - it could have been closed fairly after 63 days with one vote. Szzuk (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can you make a meaningful opinion without checking out the merits of the discussion? If the lynch pin was the new references you didn't even check through them to judge their validity. The AFD ran for 33 days with a total of 3 opinions stated. It was relisted 3 times by 3 separate users specifically due to a lack of participation. My reasoning isn't made up, it comes from the "How an AFD discussion is closed" section on Wikipedia. Again, "An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus. For how to perform this, see WP:AFD/AI." and "If consensus seems unclear the outcome can be listed as No consensus (with no effect on the article's status) or the discussion may be relisted for further discussion." the second of which happened an uncommon 3 times. What part of that suddenly twisted into a delete rather than, by protocol, falling under a no consensus? Rocckker13 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • My response was very pointed but you haven't responded to any of them - so I don't have anything else to add. Szzuk (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • And mine was specifically policy based, as in the standard by which these things run. There is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the same applies to Wikipedia and accusations. The burden of proof is not on me, it is on those who accuse the article of something to justify their opinion. Further, I posted a point by point case for the sources and other ways the article achieves notability, but you admitted you didn't read it. Rocckker13 (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. You'd do very well to step back, stop arguing with every person !voting endorse, and try to understand why they are saying what they are. To summarize, the result of an AfD is based on both policy and consensus for it to be applied. The key policy issue at question was whether the article in its current form meets our criteria for inclusion (WP:V, WP:GNG, WP:NBAND here). The closing admin thought that the delete argument was stronger in this case, and so closed the request as delete. It's clear from this discussion that most of the community members commenting believe the close was appropriate. Take that information, and try to find a way for the article content to meet the criteria for inclusion rather than arguing over procedure (especially when it is clear that the community supports how procedure was applied in this case). -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Ajraddatz: I am 100% of the time, every time, going to try to talk with someone who wants to make a decision based off of partial information. A little bureaucracy might actually help this site, majority rule is great only if the majority is unanimously informed and benevolent, otherwise historically you end up with things like the witch hunts. There are at least 2 Endorse decisions that were done spitefully as the result of an IRC conversation, and then this one where the user publicly stated that they didn't fully look into the merits of the case before posting an opinion. As for the key policy issue in question for the article, I was the only participant to use the any of the policies that you listed point by point to make a case. Specifically WP:NBAND, you can check the AFD or I can post that opinion in full here. There were no responses grappling with that information except for one user who asked a rhetorical question, which I responded to, who never posted again. Further down the path of policy, it is against general procedure to relist an AFD discussion 3 times to try to gain more participation, get more striated votes, and then close it in a Delete after getting very little more participation. Rocckker13 (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Discussion was bad, not enough parties and there wasn't a consensus. Bad close. Azamyth (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reyk _YO! 20:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The correct close. Elaborate array of references, none of which had an ability to indicate notability. No relisting would give any other result unless there are some actual references or evidence of meeting the specific requirements in NMUSIC.. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC) .[reply]
• overturn no consensus on a page that went way past the normal relist period. It’s supposed to last 7 days. Kinetic bombardment (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus There wasn't a consensus in the discussion, should have been closed No Consensus because it lasted longer than the 7 day waiting peroid. Magimarf (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC) — Magimarf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment- be aware of the sock farm flooding this DRV with spurious overturn votes. The socks have started placing their votes earlier in the discussion to appear less conspicuous. Might almost be worth insta-endorsing this discussion to put an end to the ongoing disruption. Reyk _YO! 20:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse -- reasonable close given the state of the sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protectorate of Westarctic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Found new sources in the

• Bloomberg L.P. Westarctica Raison d’être: Nonprofit awareness To meet the enterprising leader of Westarctica, you'll have to travel to West Hollywood, Calif., where he works as a recruiter for a media company and advocates for climate change awareness. To reach the actual country—620,000 frozen, uninhabitable square miles of western Antarctica—you’d need a boat and a really good reason (think: climatology research, penguin films). "I have never been there myself, but we want to occupy that region," says Grand Duke McHenry, who founded the country (pop. 300) in 2001 when he noticed that the land hadn’t been claimed by legitimized nations. McHenry registered Westarctica as a nonprofit in 2014 and nationalizes “citizens” who electronically pledge allegiance to "freedom with the goal of creating a new country in the frigid ice of Antarctica"—and sign up for his newsletter. Custom-made metal and wooden Westarctican coins might have no real value (other than the U.S. dollars they might garner from curious collectors on EBay), but the Grand Duke hopes their sale will eventually allow him to colonize. "If we put people there permanently, we'll have a better platform to advocate for that melting ice," said McHenry.
• Haaretz Another world leader coming to MicroCon is His Royal Highness Travis McHenry. As grand duke of Westarctica, he rules over 620,000 frozen, triangle-shaped square miles (1,600 square kilometers) of Antarctica that no real country ever bothered to claim. Although his nation is nearly the size of Alaska, none of its 300 citizens actually live there. But then nobody else does either. "When I discovered there was a piece of Antarctica unclaimed by any country, I was just really inspired by that," said McHenry, whose day job is recruiting coordinator for a Burbank, California-based media company. "I just sort of took my imagination and decided to see if I could turn it into a legitimate country." He made it a nonprofit last year that advocates for protecting its native penguins and studying climate change's impact on Antarctica's ice sheet. He'll give a talk on "micronations that matter." "It's just sort of encouraging other micronations to become nonprofits so they're actually doing something rather than just walking around wearing fancy capes," he says. and
• Reader's Digest Westarctica Raison d’être: Nonprofit awareness To meet the enterprising leader of Westarctica, you’ll have to travel to West Hollywood, California, where he works as a recruiter for a media company and advocates for climate-change awareness. To reach the actual country—620,000 frozen, uninhabitable square miles of western Antarctica—you’d need a boat and a really good reason. “I have never been there myself, but we want to occupy that region,” says Grand Duke Travis McHenry, who founded the country (pop. 300) in 2001 when he noticed that the land hadn’t been claimed by legitimized nations. McHenry registered Westarctica as a nonprofit in 2014 and nationalizes “citizens” who electronically pledge allegiance—and sign up for his newsletter. Custom-made metal and wooden Westarctican coins have no real value, so the grand duke has turned to corporate fund-raising, hoping donations will eventually allow him to colonize, building “a better platform to advocate for that melting ice.”.,
• The Independent Members included HRH Grand Duke Travis McHenry, the leader of the Grand Duchy of Westarctica, who in 2001 took command of an unclaimed chunk of Antarctica and  :*In 2004, he exploited a loophole in the Antarctic Treaty to name himself Grand Duke of Westarctica on Marie Byrd Land – but the US Navy, which disapproved of its lieutenant's territorial claims, forced him to abdicate.,
• Lonely Planet [2]

- scanned pages

• 2 pages,
• else 2 pages

I propose, in the light of new sources, to reconsider the possibility of restoring the article. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Note  I have added bullets and indents to the above post.  User:Vyacheslav84 should revert if desired.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close no one should be expected to wade through the sea of blue above. Come back with a solid rationale and your best three sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the first 3 sources are the best - [3], [4] and [5]. Also 2 pageselse 2 pages from [6]. This is enough for a separate article with a margin. For example ru:Вестарктика - except for 4 lines the article is written only on these 4 sources. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note, essentially the same topic is concurrently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis McHenry. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not one - in one about a person, in another about micronation. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. You copy-pasted exactly the same 4kb of text as an argument in both places. It seems odd to make exactly the same argument to two different discussions if they're not the same topic. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • One person asked me to write there. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis McHenry has been closed as NC, thus retaining that article, this DRV should be closed as endorse. Having Travis McHenry is marginal enough; there's absolutely nothing to say about the "country" which can't be said in the article about the person. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • These are completely different topics, and on the micronation of sources more than him.--Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. Unacceptably presented review nomination. Come back with no more than three sources that you argue demonstrate notability. They must be reliable independent secondary sources that discuss the topic directly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presented above 4 new reliable independent secondary sources for these requirements. Is it strictly prohibited to provide 4 sources? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow recreation new sources show that the topic is notable and fix the issue that lead to the previous deletion. Kinetic bombardment (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See SPI.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. No change from the last DRV. —Cryptic 18:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • These sources were not in the last DRV. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. These sources don't convey notability for this imaginary country. (Also, the third source from Reader's Digest is just a reprint of the first source from Bloomberg.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That you do not see the information in the sources is not a source problem (the remaining 3 sources still have more than enough for a separate article). --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The new sources fix the issue. Writer did everything asked of him. Schracq (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This isn't a vote, and creating yet another new account just to vote at DRV isn't fooling anybody. —Cryptic 03:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See SPI.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Metropolitan90. Reyk _YO! 07:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a vote. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note  The OP here is also the editor who initiated the AfD discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At that time, I did not have these sources. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note  The AfD deletion was rescinded on 5 December 2017, diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a rescinded of the deletion, but an article replacement by redirection. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Metropolitan90 and others. There's a fundamental notability issue with an imaginary country where nobody actually lives and the imaginary "ruler" hasn't actually even visited. More sources saying essentially the same thing aren't going to change that one bit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]