Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominion of British West Florida

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 of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 22:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of British West Florida[edit]

This looks like just somebody joke website [1] that got mentioned in somebody's else's blog. Not a real entity. Not a notable fantasy entity. JW1805 (Talk) 02:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete yet another fake micronation. I wonder if these can be speedied as NN groups? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 03:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:HOAX. Morgan Wick 06:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, move, and rewrite Delete and create new article per Viriditas. Morgan Wick 20:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. --Arnzy (whats up?) 06:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DakpowersTalk 07:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Erebus555 12:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Jusjih 14:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know this might seem like I'm just being awkward, but I don't think this can be written off as a hoax so quickly. The link to the "nation's" site is an interesting read. What I think is needed is a thorough rewrite, explaining why the group think they have a claim to the area, etc. I just don't think this is a hoax, it's more of a badly written historical claim etc Gretnagod 15:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Micronation does not appear to meet guidelines for notability at this time. I was unable to find the Baltimore Sun article referring to the Duke of Westarctica. Entry for the Dominion already exists at List of micronations. Keep but move to new title, British West Florida (main article West Florida) and completely rewrite to reflect the sourced historical record as found in Possession of Florida by Britain and British rule of Florida. The British rule of West Florida between 1763-1783 is a valid topic, and judging by Spanish Florida and History of Florida, is ripe for splitting off from those articles. See also: Menard, Russell R. "The Economy of British West Florida, 1763-1783." Journal of American History 75.n3 (Dec 1988): 915(2). Troxler, Carole Watterson. "The Economy of British West Florida: 1763-1783." Journal of Southern History 55.n3 (August 1989: 471(2). Steele, Ian K. "The Economy of British West Florida: 1763-1783." American Historical Review 94.n5 (Dec 1989): 1474(2). TePaske, John Jay. "The Economy of British West Florida: 1763-1783." The William and Mary Quarterly 46.n3 (July 1989): 615(3). —Viriditas | Talk 19:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The British rule of West Florida is a valid topic....but that has nothing to do with this article. There never was a historical entity called the "Dominion of British West Florida". --JW1805 (Talk) 04:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody ever said there was. It should be pretty obvious that it's an article about a modern micronation. That's what it says in the first sentence, after all. --Centauri 05:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are the notability guidelines for Category:Micronations? Does this article qualify? I suppose I'm talking about moving this (redirecting) to a main article about British West Florida, child of West Florida, where this content may or may not be notable for inclusion. —Viriditas | Talk 12:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should create a new article called British West Florida if you think that is necessary, there is no need to move and redirect this one. This article is a fantasy. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. This micronation does not appear to be notable. Changing vote. —Viriditas | Talk 01:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - hoax. Crum375 19:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nn. Ifnord 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not a hoax, and is of some interest as a micronation because it has produced metal coins recently, so it has some substance in the real world. --Centauri 21:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historical value, though the "Dominion" site seems silly. Rename (remove "Dominion of") and rewrite please. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The micronation has produced coins, they seem to be promoting a historical claim, and the web site acknowledges their unrecognized status (not a hoax) Bo 11:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps the best way of deciding whether this is valid or not is by comparing the article's virtues to those of Sealand, which is accepted as an entry of a nation with a claim, although its claim has never been officially substantiated - it's a WWII fort off the coast of England, after all. Gretnagod 12:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, Sealand is notable, and there are reliable sources attesting to its existence and importance. Is the same true for the Dominion? —Viriditas | Talk 13:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the question that I am struggling to find an answer to but, on the balance of evidence, I was minded to consider the Dominion notable enough to warrant an entry.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything except for a nation simulation article. Their website mentions that they are recognized by the Aerican Empire, Kingdom of Ribault, Grand Duchy of Elsanor, Union of Parlesian States, etc. If the information on this page can't be verified, and has not been covered by secondary sources, I'm afraid I'll have to change my vote. —Viriditas | Talk 13:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                 The events listed down to what they call 'Third Restoration'
                  can be verified. (I have checked them in google)  Their
                  'arguments' based on those, are not verifiable. Bo 14:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no axe to grind over this, I have no particular interest in micronations. But I think we need to consider what makes a micronation worthy enough to warrant a Wiki entry. For example, the Aerican Empire, which apparently recognises the Dominion of British West Florida, has existed, apparently, for 19 years. This would seem to catagorise these micronations as being similar to RPG games, which have numerous entries here Gretnagod 13:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would work for me as long as it was covered by a reliable source. Did you review the link to the Aerican Empire Afd? One alternative is to delete the article, but give the group an entry in the micronation article. —Viriditas | Talk 14:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense, but the only problem I can see is that Sealand is both a micronation and a genuinely worthy article. This entry could slot into the micronation article fine. I think common sense shows that Sealand is worthy of an article, though. Gretnagod 14:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Sealand is notable, having been covered by many reliable news outlets. Unless I've missed something, this one isn't, but micronations such as these may have exceptions. The Dominion appears to have had coins made by the Central Bank of the Grand Duchy of Westarctica. Can this be verified? According to the AfD for Richard lake, King of The Sakonta Tribe, there was a Baltimore Sun article. Can someone track that down? :-) —Viriditas | Talk 14:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If other micronations accept the claim of the Dominion of British West Florida as a valid micronation, I see no reason this can not have an article just like the other micronations in Wikipedia. I agree the historical claim is weak and downright ridiculous but separatists groups in Hawaii, Texas, and Alaska use some of the same weak arguments relating to illegal annexations in the 19th century and these groups are treated seriously by Wikipedia and not treated as hoaxes. LarryQ 14:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that the "Aerican Empire" article was deleted. Entities like Sealand, and the Republic of Texas separatists have appeared in newspapers, clashed with law enforcement, etc. Is there a reference anywhere in any legitimate news format (not counting their own website, and that blog, which is just someone commenting on the website) to the "Dominion of British West Florida"? There has to be a minimum notability requirement for "micronations". Otherwise anyone could make one up and get their own Wikipedia article. I might do one myself! --JW1805 (Talk) 00:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That blog is the World History Blog. Go and type history blog into Google, Yahoo, and MSN. The WHB is the most noted history blog on the Web. The fact that the Dominion of West Florida was covered there is notable. That post at WHB was then covered in History Carnival Number 30 and The Carnival of Satire (#33). Go ahead and start your own website but what makes you think that a noted history blog and several well known web carnivals will cover you? LarryQ 03:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't buy that a couple paragraphs in one blog from last month (and two other blogs referencing that blog) establishes sufficient notability for inclusion into Wikipedia. The bar must be higher than that. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:49, 23 May 2006 (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/Dominion_of_British_West_Florida&oldid=1142189146"