Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austenasia (3rd 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. (non-admin closure) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Austenasia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable micronation. Have tried redirecting to List of micronations (Prior AfD was mistakenly closed as no consensus, when it should have been merge, based on comments from regular contributors), but constantly reverted by accounts with few edits outside this topic. Majority of the references are to primary sources or user-submitted sites - little significant coverage from independent sources. Google news search on "Austenasia" shows no results. Standard search shows mainly unreliable sources, wikis, and primary sources - again, no significant coverage found. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources are notable. Also, I don't find any evidence that any of the sources were self-published. InTheRevolution2 (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how notable the sources are or by whom they were published if they don't establish that Austenasia meets the inclusion criteria. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep SK#2b disruption (I'll explain), SK#2c, "c making nominations of the same article with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion", and SK#2d, "d nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion". Regarding point SK#2c, there was not a single delete !vote at the last AfD. Regarding SK#2b and SK#2d, this forum is for worthless articles, not a place to resolve content disputes. Regarding SK#2d, there has been a sequence of reverts since the last AfD by editors for and against redirecting the article. Note that the last AfD was closed to allow discussion to proceed on the talk page, and there is not a single comment on the talk page. Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider merging all articles of micronations in the UK (or Europe?) into one article. Much as I wish we'd take no notice of these deluded attention-seekers, the fact remains these silly things got attention in the mainstream media. However, these individual articles are an invitation for puffery. I'd rather we didn't use Wikipedia to feed self-importance when we can avoid it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per my redirect !vote less than three months ago, List of micronations already covers the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the merits, though there are valid arguments for a merge. Unfortunately, the nominator appears to have attempted to edit-war the article into a redirect, which does nothing to prove his point. The nominator also has made no edits on this topic to the talk pages of this article, the proposed merge target, or any other discussion that I can find. I disagree with Unscintillating, in that the AFD forum certainly can be used to discuss the possibility of a merge, but it should not be the first step to that end. As noted at the last AFD, discussion needs to take place at the article's talk page, which it hasn't. That discussion comes first. The nominator also highlights the previous close as incorrect; if that's the case, Deletion review is that way. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't merge. I don't see how this meets the inclusion criteria any more or less than, say, the Empire of Atlantium or the Republic of Molossia.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 17:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd be more trigger-happy with those two examples. The only reference either of those articles has is a mention in Lonely Planet - the rest is reprints of their own websites. Writing about barely notable entities on the few things that have been covered in reliable sources is fine, but dedicating 95% of articles to reprints of people's websites is surely not what Wikipedia's for. There are reasonable arguments to keep this article, but that's a classic WP:OTHERSTUFF. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has a greater number and a wider range of reliable sources than other articles on micronations, such as Russian Empire (Suwarrow). It's made it into several international publications, as demonstrated in the citations - clearly notable enough to meet the inclusion criteria. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass GNG SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:42, 22 February 2012 (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.