Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Wy

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 keep. The article is, of course, total baloney, but part of the charm of Wikipedia is that that being based on a nonsense is no bar to having a page. However, it is well sourced baloney and there is no mandate to delete with the consensus being that it meets our notability guidelines. A sound way forward might be to take the 'merge' suggestion to the talk page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Wy[edit]

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

Apparently a trivial local dispute about the building of a driveway, leading to the self-styled serene family perpetrating a hoax on us and others Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Widespread coverage in reliable sources. Micronations, despite their lack of sovereign status, are not really hoaxes but rather an unusual form of secession; the Principality of Hutt River is a similar case, though on a larger scale. This isn't a "trivial local dispute" as it has coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Daily Telegraph. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 10:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not exactly a hoax, and agreed, there is some coverage in sources e.g. the Daily Telegraph. But just because they've picked up on this oddity doesn't mean it's notable. The phrase 'micronation' is contrived and meaningless. Incidentally it's telling that the article was created by an SPA, and includes links that could be regarded as promotional. Asnac (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as a side note, "micronations" are a reported-upon phenomenon, their being arguably meaningless legally has no bearing on the fact they are notable. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (by nominator) Now that the Principality of Wy has seceded from the whole known universe, would it be impertinent to ask who is collecting the garbage generated by The Serene Inhabitants of Wy ?? Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Paul Delprat. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but significant enough to be included in Delpart's article. Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (by author) I find it odd that this particular page has been flagged for deletion when there are several articles relating to specific micronations and the concept as a whole. The Principality of Wy seems just as notable as the Empire of Atlantium or the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands (the former of which has almost no references outside of its own website, and the latter of which cites some of the same sources as my article). I therefore take it as a criticism of the amount of information I'd initially written for the article, and am doing my upmost to improve the information provided. Purpleorb (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought it was pertinent to determine who is collecting the garbage from Wy which would be a significant indicator of the existence of the Principality of Wy. It may be that the Principality has claimed offshore territory and dumps its rubbish into Sydney Harbour. Or maybe, the Serene Family just likes to play dressups on quiet news days in the backyard of the property inherited from hardworking Daddy Guillaume Daniel Delprat. Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Can you trace any logical connection between the rubbish collection arrangements and our notability guidelines? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Mosman council collect the garbage (trash) then the article is based on a false premise (premiss) in that secession means a unilateral moving away from and if the subject of the article can be shown thereby to be not cut off from the object of their secession, then such entity has no logical existence within its categories, and hence has a logical existence only within the minds of those who may, for whatever reason or purpose, believe or claim that is an entity worthy of our continued indulgence Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What we, that is, you, me and the rest of the community, believe about the validity or motivation for this "secession" is beside the point. We go by what, and whether, reliable independent sources say about the subject. We are not being called on to decide on the validity of the Principality, but on the notability as a subject for an article. We have articles on many things with no objective existence: it's called fiction. IT only has to be notable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated (by author) I have made changes to the page to improve the information relating to the notability of the principality and have added more relevant links to reliable sources directly referencing the principality Purpleorb (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment (by nominator) Now Their Serenenesses of Wy (a smaller than average household block in the suburb) are claiming via Their Most Eminent Emissary to Wikipedia (recipient of the Purple Orb etc. etc. etc.) to lay claim to 170 acres of land (or water?). Would the recipient of the Purple Orb be so kind to as to notify us of the areas of Mosman that have been claimed so that the residents therein may flee before being slaughtered in their beds by the Sacred Army of Wy, chanting the terrible anthem of the Principality? Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment further to my Delete note above - this article has since then been puffed up a bit but the COI is blatant and I believe that at root it's a publicity stunt largely intended to promote a commercial enterprise. Yes, there are news articles - but this is all from the same publicity drive engineered by the author. A wiki article is part of the publicity drive and will confer respectability on this enterprise - let's discourage such self-promotion by deleting. Asnac (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't appreciate the insinuation that I am either a member of the principality or their PR agent. I feel as though I am being unfairly targeted for simply wishing to provide information about a topic I felt was notable.Purpleorb (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying you disapprove of the purpose to which an article might be put does not seem to be a valid deletion argument. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I was restating (in my bombastic way) the governing principle from the first of the five pillars: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press... Asnac (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. It's an encyclopaedia in which we have articles about topics which are notable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From a personal perspective I would agrue that most pop singers have no validity as musicians, but I'm not about to suggest their pages should all be deleted.Purpleorb (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why has this discussion misplaced the address of the alleged thingo, ie [Suppressed]. If the alleged thingo is permitted by our rational community, it will need Geocoords Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The exact address has been suppressed as personal information. Please don't put it back in. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will not put it back in, but if the alleged Principality is to be be taken seriously it will need Geocoords to place it a suburban allotment which has been censored above, in a suburb which may or not be Mosman. According to the current state of the article it has shrunk from 170 acres to a bit less than a little bit of an acre; which would now put it within the suppressed suburban block; if the article is deleted there would no need to mention the address and would preserve the privacy of Mr Delprat, whose address (which would appear to match that of Wy) is listed in the Sydney White Pages (deliberately not linked) Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, and it so happens I agree with Crusoe8181 on this, but what does this have to do with the deletion or otherwise of the article? Surely this content discussion belongs on the article talk page? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite clearly, absolutely nothing whatsoever; just that if you or I declare our little suburban block something ridiculous like the Grand Duchy of Crusoe we can hardly complain if we are told where we live Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a concrete, reliable source linking the address you have mentioned and the Principality of Wy? If not, it could be that you are publishing the address of someone completely uninvolved in this discussion. Incidentally, I thank you for picking up on my mistake with regards to the size of the principality.Purpleorb (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability shown by significant coverage in reliable mainstream news sources. We aren't endorsing the existence of these baloney micronations as actual countries by having articles on ones that have attained individual notability.[1][2][3][4].--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic with sourcing. Global coverage. HeLmiT (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2011 (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/Principality_of_Wy&oldid=1069499858"