Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paraduin

Add links
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 delete. Clear consensus to delete. PenaltyCard's "reluctant keep" makes a reasonable theoretical case, but analysis of actual mentions by multiple delete commenters adequately rebuts the possibility of significant coverage in reliable sources. No other keep votes were persuasive. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paraduin[edit]

Paraduin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable 'micronation.' A WP:BEFORE search indicates virtually no coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources, [1]. Only sources are WP:PRIMARY, and as such lack the required persistence and depth of coverage required to pass WP:N. Incidentally, per WP:VNT, this is verging, I think on a WP:HOAX; at least, WP:A11 ('Obviously made up by creator, and no claim of significance') may apply. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most peculiar sourcing - seems to consist principally of pieces in the homegrown propaganda bulletin, mixed up with blogs and what appears to be the Dutch Deletionpedia equivalent (?). And do my eyes deceive me, or are several of these pieces authored by the editor who created this article? This is a miasma of COI and makes no credible claim for notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable hoax. --Yopie (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, sourcing sucks, possible hoax, created by COI/POV editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: While I am aware that some people consider micronations a hoax, that really doesn't matter here. Many hoaxes have a page on Wikipedia, as do many micronations. Paraduin's activities, meanwhile, are very real, and my COI has been properly declared. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The following sources are not primary: Durham University, South Maudlandian Standard, Romania TV, Sociaal Bestek (yes, this is a real magazine), Oikos Online, Radio Televizija Vojvodine, Dread Central, Bloody Disgusting. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is just the Liberland article rewritten about a different 'micronation' that 'claimed' the same land as Liberland, but 2 weeks earlier ʬʬ (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It may seem that way because I rewrote much of Liberland, but no, my starting points were the Wikisage and Micronations Wiki articles on Paraduin. If you're suggesting a merge, I would rather write an article on Siga since the Liberland article is very detailed. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very reluctant Keep This is a very strange article, with a soup of sources including some terrible ones, swathes of content stolen from the Liberland article, and (speaking as a micronationalist), this has clearly been written by the country's founder. However, if anyone felt as though they were prepared to gut and rewrite this, a good faith look at the sources and a Google search throws up one or two articles in magazines and such forth that merit what I think is weak notability. PenaltyCard (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My fellow user User:PenaltyCard said it better than I ever could.Mahuset (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WP:RS are not actually about this micronation, and the sources about this micronation are not reliable. It is not impossible for micronations to qualify under WP:GNG (See Sealand and Principality of Hutt River for the most prominent examples). This one, however, doesn't show anything available in sources that would qualify. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This entire WP page is currently "sourced" to that personal website. I assume that the person who created that site is probably the same person who is counted as the single citizen of "Paraduin" (in the infobox) and possibly the same person who created this WP page. All other sources currently used on the page are also either not RS or do not tell anything directly on the subject. This is WP:SOAP at worst. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per what Fortuna had to offer. There isn't any coverage from reliable sources and I was concerned that there was a COI between the editor and Paraduin. Throughout the article consists of basic background information about the land dispute (which is mentioned on Liberland or Croatia–Serbia border dispute), primary sources, or sources that don't even mention the micronation; nothing really indicating any significant notability. Adog104 Talk to me 17:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing independent reliable sources about the micronation, just mention in passing and self-serving junk. Note that the article creator's community ban has been reinstated after an ANI thread. Meters (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources, no reasonable claim for significance, and a Godzilla-sized COI attached to the dominant editor. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some friends of mine were talking about this on the social students forum. It doesn't seem right to have Liberland but not Paraduin, as they were first. And your search is not very good. They are mentioned in a lot of publications about Liberland. --Dolberty (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "We discussed it" on some student forum is not a good reason to keep and if you claim there are better sources, please cite them. Merely claiming they exist does not suffice. Kleuske (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, thank you for your comment. I don't know about better, just more. Romanian television is already very good I think. But what about everyone saying delete? Shouldn't they prove what they're saying, too? Dolberty (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dolberty. Re. 'Shouldn't they prove what they're saying': They are, with policy-based reasons for removing this article from the encyclopaedia due to a lack of notability and a possibility of it having been made up by some guy on the can one day  :) take care! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm not really sure what you are saying but of course it was made up one day. So was Liberland. All micronations are. I just added Neutral Moresnet somewhere. It was made up one day, too. Also some micronations are made up by girls. Dolberty (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, with the help from my friends I think I know what happened now. There are many publications about Liberland that say something about Paraduin. For instance in Vagabond (magazine), Geek.com, UniLad. Google has them. They all look like good publications for the Liberland article, too. But the people that created it didn't want to use them. In my opinion there are way too many Liberland fans here who want their own version of history. The president of Liberland is even editing his own article. --Dolberty (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to search. They forgot to tell me that there is a new version of this article which is longer and has more sources. It is here: [2]. I'm now leaving this topic. It's interesting but I have a school project. Dolberty (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Dolberty the editor who wrote this article, subsequently banned (again) from Wikipedia, went to the trouble of setting up his own whole wiki just so he could give his article a safe haven? Brilliant. Incidentally, if you are a member of 'Sagewiki', could you please remind them that although our articles are opensource, they do require attribution- which is not being given- every time an article is stolen copied from here to there. Cheers, — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha! So funny. You made my day. Dolberty (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Paraduin were the location of a noteworthy event, it might belong here. If Paraduin were covered by reliable texts -- especially ones that were actually about Paraduin itself and not brief references in relation to another topic -- it might belong here. So far, this subject seems to have been given a passing treatment in articles about better-known microstates, and for good reason. It is suggested that a hundred words (or even fifty) in a single source qualifies as "significant coverage," but I don't see any of this anywhere. Apart from self-published sources by the creators of Paraduin, the only mention of it in (barely) reliable sources seems to be "oh, yeah, and Paraduin is a thing that exists." I don't see anything like a full article dedicated to it, a mention in a book, even a magazine article dedicated specifically to covering Paraduin. Show me a publication with some kind of editorial oversight give this topic more than a once-over, and I'll change my vote. RexSueciae (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I don't know if it counts but this is one I found myself and it has more than 100 words:[3]. Google translate says paradise! And there are several about Liberland that have more than 50 words about Paraduin. Shouldn't you add it up? (Sorry, still here.) Dolberty (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's somebody's blog, so no, it doesn't count. ... discospinster talk 16:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, ok. My girlfriend (yeah) has been counting words. These are the results: 31, 41, 49, 53, 58, 60, 88, 138, 145 (this is a journal on paper but the text was copied to the website). Dolberty (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • RexSueciae Liberlanders and their flag getting captured is what happened in Paraduin. Dolberty (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi Dolberty, let me go through these sources that are being provided:
Vagabond magazine is a decent source, but the entirety of their content on Paraduin is a few sentences taken from Geek.com.
Geek.com is a typical pop culture website, but literally the only thing on Paraduin is that it apparently exists in the vicinity of Liberland.
RomaniaTV is a decent source, but literally the only thing on Paraduin is that it apparently exists in the vicinity of Liberland.
EnDanDit looks like a typical pop culture website, but literally the only thing on Paraduin is that it apparently exists in the vicinity of Liberland and also some redditor talked about it. The comment from Guido den Broeder does not count.
ThePlaidZebra looks like a typical pop culture website, but literally the only thing on Paraduin is that it apparently exists in the vicinity of Liberland.
Unilad is a typical pop culture website, but literally the only thing on Paraduin is that it apparently exists in the vicinity of Liberland.
OikosOnline looks like a typical pop culture website, and we're in luck! They mention that Paraduin exists, and that Paraduin is believed by some to be a gateway to a planet called Paraduin. That is a piece of information that could be cited properly.
The South Maudlandian Standard is a self-published source, from the "Republic of South Maudlandia," and is also an opinion piece. If it were a reliable source, you could get the additional bit of information about when Paraduin enthusiasts claimed it to be founded.
Documents produced or hosted by the administration of Paraduin is of questionable use here. Wikipedia standards allow for these sorts of sources to be used for information on their subject (so, for example, a claim for Paraduin's current leadership can be cited to a Paraduin source) but not for determining notability (anybody could create a website for their thing and then reference it).
So now we've established three things: Paraduin exists in the vicinity of Liberland, at least one person on Reddit knows about it, and it is believed by some to be the gateway to another planet. That's hardly enough information to write a wiki article (even stubs have the potential to be filled with information, though it may be low-priority or obscure), and never more than a couple or three consecutive sentences about Paraduin. Every single article is about Liberland, with the sidenote "oh yeah and Paraduin too" tacked on. Most, if not all, Wikipedia articles can be expanded with information from Google Scholar, JSTOR, printed books from reliable publishers, and websites from reliable organizations. Even in the case of a relatively recent thing or event that would not have so many journal articles and whatnot written about it, you'd expect a mainstream news company to write at least something about Paraduin if it's so notable that it gets a Wikipedia page. I think that about sums up my position -- my vote, unfortunately, remains a solid "no." RexSueciae (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RexSueciae, that is your right of course. I think there are enough words. My teacher says that there should be a minimum of three meaningful facts. Do you agree with that? Dolberty (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:Meat. Creating an account to vote because someone told you is not a good idea.My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have the right to my opinion, just like Rex. I disagree with what he is saying, because there is more information in the publications, but we are having a good discussion. You are just yelling. I think you should change your name now. Dolberty (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dolberty – Please be WP:CIVIL. Adog104 Talk to me 13:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was fine by my civility standards. But here is the problem with the page, and it is very common for many "pseudo-pages" in WP. There are several sources that only mention the existence of the subject, but do not tell anything of substance about it. Everything of substance comes from the single unreliable primary source, i.e. a website created by the subject itself. This is plain non-notable, and nothing can be reliably sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whether it is a hoax or not, the subject is not notable in WP terms. Carrite (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of any notability. Kleuske (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paraduin&oldid=1072152100"