Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Duchy of Westarctica
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Grand Duchy of Westarctica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Supposed "micronation" with very few (849) ghits, most to blogs or to sites selling wooden coins. I haven't seen any secondary sources/news coverage. Doesn't seem to meet notability standards. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It gets four pages (pp. 111–113) in ISBN 9781741047301, where it is listed as simply Westarctica. Uncle G (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep and rename per Uncle G. If the micronation is mentioned in a book it is not merely made up as the nominator appears to imply. Likely covered in other books about micronations as well. - Mgm|(talk) 15:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. More sources establishing notability. LinguistAtLarge 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's 6 sources at best, not really significant coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason behind rationale is provided. MuZemike (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and don't rename - Lonely Planet has a section on Westarctica, all micronation articles are known by their full names. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and do not rename - Listed in books, as well as news sources... per WP Micronation should be titled as it's long, proper name... it needs some work, and better references, but does not deserve to be deleted... - Adolphus (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and do not rename --Yopie 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- No reason behind rationale is provided. MuZemike (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Listed in Lonely Planet, minted coins --Yopie 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and do not rename This is getting monotonous, isn't it? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per coverage in multiple reliable sources. Wiw8 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete None of the news sources cited were covering this "micronation" as a real geopolitical entity, but as more of a humorous "water cooler story" or silly factoid. Fails WP:N due to lack of substantial (non-tongue in cheek) coverage in independent and reliable publications. Edison (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (edit conflict) I must be missing something, but where are the sources that establish this is a micronation? Can someone point me in the right direction? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- here is the Micronations entry... also added to the article... - Adolphus (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That article says that there is a "claiming" of unclaimed land in antarctica by some Americans and that no one lives in Westarctica. It also says the area is known as Marie Byrd Land. The supposed Micronation which seems a front to sell coins, was founded in 2001 and is a "monarchy" with a website? I feel like people are pulling my leg. What is notable about this non-nation except perhaps as a ruse, but since it hasn't been covered substantially I don't think an article is warranted even for that. Can I put a Hoax template on the article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC) The guy appointed himself "Grand Duke, and designed a flag. Should this be merged with a/the Byrd Station (1957-1972) article about the scientific research and drilling station and the Byrd Surface Camp opened by the US Antarctic program? Is it going to be made clear this is a hoax? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably don't understand, what is "micronation", please read articles about it. --Yopie 01:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment OK, I'm satisfied that the level of notability required for micronations has been established. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Suggest keep closure per nominator withdrawal above. However I think it may be wise to offer some explanation within this article as to what a "micronation" actually is, to avoid confusion in readers who aren't familiar with the fact that this term means more than just "small country". Wiw8 (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have the link micronation for that. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would usually agree, however in this particular case, the reader has to realise that micronation means something very different to the obvious meaning before they have a reason to click that link. While this won't be true of all readers, I think it is this same confusion that has lead some AFD commentators to suggest that this article may be a hoax (and perhaps also lead to the AFD nomination). I'm not suggesting we include the full contents of the micronation article in this article, just that it should be made a little clearer that this is not a recognised country/nation without relying on the reader knowing that this is true by definition of the term "micronation". This article currently refers to Westarctica in several places as a "country". Anyway we digress (this may be a topic for discussion on the article talk page though). Cheers Wiw8 (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct in saying that the word "country" should not be there, it should be "micronation". In the past there was a discussion on including the definition of micronation - however there is no reason to do this. The reason why there are links in Wikipedia is so that A) We do not have to repeat ourselves in every article and B) Readers can find a detailed article on the subject if they wish. If readers do not want to spend time researching the subject by simply using the link, then we don't have to waste time bringing the research to them. I think that it is important that we mention it here, seeing as AfD nominators in particular should learn about the importance of research, because they have the burden of proof, and therefore they need to do their research - not us. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the article and the introduction in particular don't make clear what "Westarctica" is. It's an unrecognized land claim from 2001 by some American guy. It's used to sell coins. The article is very misleading and it doesn't do a good job describing "Westarctica". I'm going to try to fix it up a bit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct in saying that the word "country" should not be there, it should be "micronation". In the past there was a discussion on including the definition of micronation - however there is no reason to do this. The reason why there are links in Wikipedia is so that A) We do not have to repeat ourselves in every article and B) Readers can find a detailed article on the subject if they wish. If readers do not want to spend time researching the subject by simply using the link, then we don't have to waste time bringing the research to them. I think that it is important that we mention it here, seeing as AfD nominators in particular should learn about the importance of research, because they have the burden of proof, and therefore they need to do their research - not us. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would usually agree, however in this particular case, the reader has to realise that micronation means something very different to the obvious meaning before they have a reason to click that link. While this won't be true of all readers, I think it is this same confusion that has lead some AFD commentators to suggest that this article may be a hoax (and perhaps also lead to the AFD nomination). I'm not suggesting we include the full contents of the micronation article in this article, just that it should be made a little clearer that this is not a recognised country/nation without relying on the reader knowing that this is true by definition of the term "micronation". This article currently refers to Westarctica in several places as a "country". Anyway we digress (this may be a topic for discussion on the article talk page though). Cheers Wiw8 (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have the link micronation for that. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Micronations only exist as nations in the minds of their claimants. They are a variety of vanity, like vanity books and there have even been vanity patents. With a very few exceptions they are all NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that most are non-notable (you see several new ones pop up each week if you have List of micronations on your watch list). But, I believe if they have been written about in a book, and/or several times in notable newspapers, they pass WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS concerns just like any other entity... - Adolphus (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, I'm satisfied that Westarctica may have enough coverage to be included, but it needs to be made clear right up front in the intro of these articles what the subjects are and are not. The term micronation (tiny nation) is VERY misleading, even if it is established. So making clear that these are not officially recognized and are simply land claims aspiring to nation status is VERY important, especially when the claims are used to engage in dubious and sometimes fraudulent activities. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2008 (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.