Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venetian Republic (2014)

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 merge to Venetian independence referendum, 2014. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian Republic (2014)[edit]

Venetian Republic (2014) (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)

I proposed this article "Venetian Republic (2014)" for the deletion because an unrecognized state can't be declared after an online survey and an informal declaration by a group of people because if those were criteria to create an unrecognized state we would have more than new 50 countries today. Moreover, the sources used don't consider it as an unrecognized state.--Ghepa90 (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a real entity, and could only be discussed in the context of Venetian separatism: the vote is already covered in Veneto#Venetian_nationalism. Not sure this is sufficiently plausible a search term to redirect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The AfD tag is not on the article, can someone correct?--Milowent • hasspoken 04:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Rename. Besides the problems pointed our above, it seems that many votes came from abroad, people voted twice, and so on. See here about that. The central point, however, is that in order for a self-proclaimed geopolitical entity to be considered a state, this entity must satisfy certain criteria (see about that Self-declared states): and this is clearly NOT the case here. On the other side, what happened is IMHO surely notable, so one could keep the article with another (not misleading) name, like "Web Referendum for Venetian Independence (2014)", or move the content to another article already existing. Alex2006 (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In editing this article I took the same position I did when the article for the Republic of Crimea was prematurely created with the article stating it was an "unrecognized state" before any official referendum occurred. (Crimea's March 11 declaration that caused that article to be created was more of a pre-declaration statement of their intention to declare independence in the event of a referendum than an actual declaration). My proposal then was to have the article state instead that it was a "proposed state" rather than an "unrecognized state". I think the same can be applied here. No official referendum has been held therefore you cannot say this is an unrecognized state. If this article is to exist, it should state that the Venetian Republic is a proposed state. "Unrecognized state" doesn't make sense as something to add to the article until an official referendum is held and a majority vote establishes an independent republic. Since both the referendum and this declaration was done by "activists" and not the regional government then I would agree that the legitimacy of this article is in serious question (which is different from the Crimea situation). So I don't really think this article needs to exist but my edits were simply to improve the article while it exists. --Stan2525 (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Stan! The problem, as you say, is that this referendum has been held by a private organization, and according to many fonts its regularity is strongly in doubt. The activists don`t control the territory, and no state in the world is recognizing the Venetian Republic. Nevertheless, the info in the article is surely notable: the Italian media wrote articles about the referendum, so it think that there is space for an article. Let`s wait for some other opinion. Alex2006 (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Delete Hi. I support this deletion because it is not so easy to declare an unrecognized state. Unrecognized state means that the state is not recognized by some countries or by anybody, but de facto it exists (institutions, police, army, IDs...) and it is de facto independent. I study in Milan, but I am from Belluno and I can assure you that all Italian institutions are working there, so nothing has changed.--93.32.115.154 (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Delete I support the deletion simply because the venetian republic doesn't exist. It is just a folkloristic indipendence made by a small group of people which want to challenge the government and delete all the tax. They don't have a real support by the population.
  • Oppose/Keep. I wouldn't have started the article yet, but the issue is notable and I don't see why and how it would be unencyclopedic. I see people talking about the referendum, but the article has little to do with it. I think we should keep this article: the Venetian Republic proclaimed by Plebiscito.eu might not be an unrecognized state, but it is surely a notable political organisation with a widespread structure. It needs an article anyway. --Checco (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does "a widespread structure" mean? Are already in function a government, departments, police, army, schools, post, a tax collection service, and so on? Alex2006 (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A political organisation with a widespread structure, that's what I meant. The "Venetian Republic" might not be an unrecognised state by Wikipedia (or any) standards, but it is definitely a political organisation to reckon with: in that capacity, the subject is worth an article. --Checco (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that here there is some confusion. Republic is a form of government, not a political organization among private persons (in this case the name of the thing is party). But in the article it is clearly stated that "The republic was declared on March 21, 2014 in Treviso" and "On March 24, the republic started to seek international recognition and diplomatic ties.". An encyclopedia should inform people, not confuse them (or, as in some case, increase their confusion :-)) Alex2006 (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree, but I preferred not to edit the article while it is up for AfD. "Venetian Republic" is the name of the political organisation the article covers; that such political organisation, which is opening "public offices" all around Veneto and issuing decrees, can be described also as an unrecognised state is a matter of discussion, while it is out of question that the subject is notable. --Checco (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily a notable subject deserves its own article: there is already an article about Venetian nationalism, I would say that this is another episode of it, and can find its place there. Alex2006 (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Delete. This article does not respect all Wikipedia criteria. It is neither an unrecognized country nor a declared country, because there are no institutions who have taken the control of the region or at least of large part of it. It seems just a political propaganda that must not be included in an encyclopaedia.--79.43.111.232 (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit the article to reflect that it is a "proposed state" not an "unrecognized state". Here is how I edited the article to reflect that. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venetian_Republic_%282014%29&diff=prev&oldid=604150768 I am basing my position on the fact that the article for Republic of Lakotah exists for a "proposed homeland" and has not been deleted, the Republic of Lakotah was declared also by activists, not the tribal government, just like the Venetian Republic was declared by activists and not the Veneto government, similar to this case. I think that article establishes a precedent for keeping this article, although as I said, it must use the term "proposed state". So that's why I'm voting Keep. And if that article for the Republic of Lakotah wasn't there, I'd vote delete, but in the interest of consistency, perhaps we should keep this article. --Stan2525 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only claim this "state" has to sovereignty is based on the results of a non-binding online poll open to anyone with internet access. I really fail to see how anyone could seriously argue that this is a legitimate state. In response to the comment below me, the article on Veneto already covers the referendum. A merge is therefore not necessary. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Veneto. Whether or not it's a legitimate state is irrelevant. This issue is clearly notable and has received coverage in independent sources, which include The Guardian. Nevertheless, this is already discussed in the Veneto nationalism section, and doesn't appear substantive enough to merit its own page. Why not just merge this stuff into the Veneto article? I think that's the real issue here. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to Venetian independence referendum, 2014. This article is immensely misleading, with everything written with a lot more implied substance than it actually has. No reliable external sources treat it with the weight this article displays, and that is because all this is is an ideal in the mind of a few activists. The information would fit much better on another article, written with appropriate style and context. CMD (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I have been reading for a couple of days the posts on www.plebiscito.eu, the "official" site of the republic. They are very few, while one would expect much more traffic if - as the activists say - 2.36 millions people voted for the republic. Alex2006 (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2014 (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/Venetian_Republic_(2014)&oldid=1071224653"